qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Implement a virtio GPU transport


From: Ian Molton
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Implement a virtio GPU transport
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:50:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100917 Icedove/3.0.8

On 28/10/10 15:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/28/2010 09:24 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/28/2010 01:54 PM, Ian Molton wrote:

True, but then all that would prove is that I can write a spec to
match the code.

It would also allow us to check that the spec matches the
requirements. Those two steps are easier than checking that the code
matches the requirements.

There was no formal spec for this. The code was written to replace nasty undefined-instruction based data transport hacks in the (already existing) GL passthrough code.

I'm extremely sceptical of any GL passthrough proposal. There have
literally been half a dozen over the years and they never seem to leave
proof-of-concept phase. My (limited) understanding is that it's a
fundamentally hard problem that no one has adequately solved yet.

The code in this case has been presented as a patch to qemu nearly 3 years ago. I've taken the patches and refactored them to use virtio rather than an undefined instruction (which fails under KVM, unlike my approach).

Its in use testing meego images and seems to be fairly reliable. it can handle compositing window managers, games, video, etc. We're currently supporting OpenGL 1.4 including shaders.

A specifically matters an awful lot less than an explanation of how the
problem is being solved in a robust fashion such that it can be reviewed
by people with a deeper understanding of the problem space.

I'm not sure there is a way to prevent nefarious tasks upsetting the hosts OpenGL with carefully crafted strings of commands, short of inspecting every single command, which is insane.

Really this needs to be done at a lower level by presenting a virtual GPU to the guest OS but I am not in a position to code that right now.

The code as it is is useful, and can always be superceeded by a virtual GPU implementation in future.

At least this breaks the chicken / egg cycle of people wanting GL support on virtual machines, but not writing stuff to take advantage of it because the support isn't there. its also a neatly encapsulated solution - if you dont want people to have access to the passthrough, simply tell qemu not to present the virtio-gl device to the guest, via qemus existing commandline options.

If this code was invasive to qemus core, I'd say 'no way' but its just not. and as the GL device is versioned, we can keep using it even if the passthrough is replaced by a virtual GPU.



reply via email to

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