From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752743AbdI3Djo (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:39:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46754 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752591AbdI3Djn (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:39:43 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 14CDB5D685 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:39:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Paolo Bonzini To: Lai Jiangshan Cc: LKML , kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, x86@kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, Boris Ostrovsky , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , mingo@redhat.com, Rusty Russell , Juergen Gross Message-ID: <2066229454.9340650.1506742781667.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4102561f-b403-735e-a18a-7c55db57df74@redhat.com> Subject: Re: KVM PV (was: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/lguest: remove lguest support) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [78.12.246.117, 10.4.196.24, 10.4.195.19] Thread-Topic: KVM PV (was: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/lguest: remove lguest support) Thread-Index: 06ByTa4shTjUQchNpUJViHAsj0Bkjw== X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:39:43 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Lai Jiangshan ha scritto: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 29/09/2017 17:47, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >> Hello, all > >> > >> An interesting (at least to me) thinking came up to me when I found > >> that the lguest was removed. But I don't have enough knowledge > >> to find out the answer nor energy to implement it in some time. > >> > >> Is it possible to implement kvm-pv which allows kvm to run on > >> the boxes without hardware virtualization support, so that > >> qemu/kvm can be used on clouds such as aws, azure? > > > > No, please don't. :) Even Xen is moving from PV to PVH (paravirtualized > > hardware with event channels, grant tables and the like, but still using > > hardware extensions for MMU). > > > > Rather, cloud providers should help getting nested virtualization ready > > for production use. At least for KVM it's not that far. > > > > Although I'm not business man, I don't think the top cloud provider[s] > would allow nested virtualization, however mature nested virtualization > is. Even xen-pv is unable to be nested in the aws and azure. Check the contributors to KVM nested virtualization, you might be surprised. Nested Xen PV is not possible because the Xen hypervisor cannot run as a PV guest. It's a technical limitation. Paolo > > Thanks, > Lai > > >