Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:50:43AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
* On Tuesday 29 July 2008 18:47:35 Andi Kleen wrote:
I'm not so interested to go there right now, because while this code
is useful right now because the majority of systems out there lacks
VT-d/iommu, I suspect this code could be nuked in the long
run when all systems will ship with that, which is why I kept it all
Actually at least on Intel platforms and if you exclude the lowest end
VT-d is shipping universally for quite some time now. If you
buy a Intel box today or bought it in the last year the chances are pretty
high that it has VT-d support.
I think you mean VT-x, which is virtualization extensions for the x86
architecture. VT-d is virtualization extensions for devices (IOMMU).
I think Andi understood VT-d right but even if he was right that every
reader of this email that is buying a new VT-x system today is also
almost guaranteed to get a VT-d motherboard (which I disagree unless
you buy some really expensive toy), there are current large
installations of VT-x systems that lacks VT-d and that with recent
current dual/quadcore cpus are very fast and will be used for the next
couple of years and they will not upgrade just the motherboard to use
pci-passthrough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
In addition KVM is used in embedded too and things are slower there, we
know of a specific use case (production) that demands
1:1 mapping and can't use VT-d
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
