From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:24:11 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Intel Vanderpool VM extensions Message-ID: <20050311152410.K25865@mrwint.cisco.com> References: <32d987d5050309160066ee7dbe@mail.gmail.com> <9f4f2b72ce86b9733f083084d2bd3c5d@plan9.ucalgary.ca> <3e1162e60503091721265f5089@mail.gmail.com> <32d987d5050309213760290ec9@mail.gmail.com> <32d987d5050309213926861c81@mail.gmail.com> <4230A9DB.4070203@village.com> <20050310225505.C25865@mrwint.cisco.com> <20050311105956.4df7bb93.martin_ml@parvat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20050311105956.4df7bb93.martin_ml@parvat.com>; from martin_ml@parvat.com on Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:59:56AM +0530 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 23128d96-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:59:56AM +0530, Martin C.Atkins wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:55:05 +0000 Derek Fawcus wrote: > >.. > > > . > >.. > > Interesting... I'd not heard of this. SoI had a quick glance... > > > > Does this stuff make the x86 completely virtualisable without > > jumping through the hoops that vmware / qemu have to follow? > > I don't know. Looks complicated, doesn't it? I did a bit more reading around, and yup it does look like it'll do it. However it does it my sort of creating a 'ring -1' and having the lower rings virtualised. So... what if one want's to virtualise 'ring -1' :-) > However, this means that yes, Vanderpool would/should (assuming > they've got it "right" :-) make vmware 'trivial' (like MOL > (maconlinux) is, on the Mac), but no, it will not help qemu at all, > since the JIT interpretation of code is central to qemu's approach. Actually it could help qemu - given that kqemu already exists. It'd just mean that kqemu would be able to handle rings 0/1/2 as well as ring 3. DF