[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V12 05/17] xen: Add xenfv machine

From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V12 05/17] xen: Add xenfv machine
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:05:27 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv: Gecko/20080226 SUSE/ Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

On 2011-04-13 13:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-04-13 12:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Well, either you have a use for the VCPU state (how do you do migration
>>>> in Xen without it?), or you should probably teach QEMU in a careful &
>>>> clean way to run its device model without VCPUs - and without any
>>>> TCG-related memory consumption. For the latter, you would likely receive
>>>> kudos from KVM people as well.
>>>> BTW, if you happen to support that crazy vmport under Xen, not updating
>>>> the VCPU state will break your neck. Also, lacking VCPUs prevent the
>>>> usage of analysis and debugging features of QEMU (monitor, gdbstub).
>>> We don't use the vcpu state in qemu because qemu takes care of device
>>> emulation only; under xen the vcpu state is saved and restored by the
>>> hypervisor.
>> Just out of curiosity: So you are extracting the device states out of
>> QEMU on migration, do the same with the VCPU states from the hypervisor
>> (which wouldn't be that different from KVM in fact), and then transfer
>> that to the destination node? Is there a technical or historical reason
>> for this split-up? I mean, you still need some managing instance that
>> does the state transportation and VM control on both sides, i.e. someone
>> for the job that QEMU is doing for TCG or KVM migrations.
> That someone is the "toolstack", I guess libvirt would be the closest
> thing to our toolstack in the kvm world.
> The reason why we have a toolstack performing this task rather than qemu
> is that pure PV guests don't need device emulation, so we don't even
> have qemu running most of the times if there are only linux guests
> installed in the system.

Ah, for that use case it makes some sense to me.

I bet there would also be some value in consolidating the "toolstack"
functionality over bare qemu/libvirt infrastructure (if we ignored all
existing interfaces and dependencies for a moment).


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]