Robert Swindells <[email protected]> writes: > Aryabhata <bsdhexa%gmail.com@localhost> wrote: >> Is there any serious momentum behind getting OpenBSD's vmm or FreeBSD's >> bhyve working seamlessly as the frontend for NVMM? I'd much rather >> migrate to a clean, human-maintained codebase than deal with the fallout >> of whatever QEMU is about to merge into their tree. > > The interrupt handling emulation in qemu doesn't work very well when > trying to boot Linux in a VM, is bhyve better at this? > > There could also be a future project to add support for virtual > interrupts (AVIC and the Intel equivalent) to nvmm(4), then use that in > the userspace client, this might be easier to do in a smaller codebase > like bhyve.
I have been seeing mentions of FreeBSD bhyve for a long time and not been clear on it. Xen can run without qemu, in PV mode, and with qemu, in HVM. (There is some notion of a lightweight PV/HVM hybrid where disk/network is PV and memory maps are HVM without qemu, but I'm fuzzy on that.) I wonder if anyone can explain Does bhyve use qemu for full virtualization? Something else? Is there a PV method? Can you e.g. boot Windows under bhyve? Is OpenBSD vmm related to NetBSD's nvmm? I am guessing not, and am probably remembering something about nvmm in DragonFly. It looks like OpenBSD's support is restricted and probably doesn't include full HVM operation and thus doesn't have qemu.
