* Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is not what i said. I said they are closely related, and where
> > technologies are closely related, project proximity turns into project
> > unification at a certain stage.
>
> I really don't see how. So what if both qemu and kvm implement an i8254?
> They can't share any code since the internal APIs are so different. [...]
I wouldnt jump to assumptions there. perf shares some facilities with the
kernel on the source code level - they can be built both in the kernel and in
user-space.
But my main thought wasnt even to actually share the implementation - but to
actually synchronize when a piece of device emulation moves into the kernel.
It is arguably bad for performance in most cases when Qemu handles a given
device - so all the common devices should be kernel accelerated.
The version and testing matrix would be simplified significantly as well: as
kernel and qemu goes hand in hand, they are always on the same version.
> [...] Even worse for the x86 emulator as qemu and kvm are fundamentally
> different.
So is it your argument that the difference and the duplication in x86
instruction emulation is a good thing? You said it some time ago that
the kvm x86 emulator was very messy and you wish it was cleaner.
While qemu's is indeed rather different (it's partly a translator/JIT), i'm
sure the decoder logic could be shared - and qemu has a slow-path
full-emulation fallback in any case, which is similar to what in-kernel
emulator does (IIRC ...).
That might have changed meanwhile.
Ingo
--
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
