* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It still exists in userspace. Having the code duplication
> > (especially when it's not the same code base) is unfortunate.
>
> This remains true.
but it's the wrong argument. Of course there's duplicate functionality,
and that's _good_ because it represents choice. KVM _itself_ is
duplicate functionality of qemu in a way. So why move the lapic/PIC
handling to the kernel? Because it's alot cleaner to do device emulation
there and PV drivers get significantly easier to do. The lapic/PIC code
should also be available in Qemu for OSs that dont have KVM-alike
support in the kernel.
and while today most of the performance advantages of moving the PIC
into the kernel are masked by the high cost of VM exits, in the future
the effect will be more marked, as the relative cost of piggybacking out
to qemu increases.
I can see the value in doing certain things in Qemu, but i cannot see
_at all_ the value of handling say the PIT in Qemu. Just look at the
Qemu PIT/timers code quality in Qemu for a change ... it's a huge ugly
mess of lots of #ifdefs, ineffective handling of /dev/rtc, linear list
walking, signal overhead, etc., etc. All of that resulting in 10-15% of
'idle' overhead of KVM+qemu when it runs a Linux guest. On the other
side, in the kernel it's most natural to do timers and to emulate
hardware, because the kernel has _precise_ knowledge about the
platform's capabilities.
Ingo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
