|
From: | Avi Kivity |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] POLL: Why do you use kqemu? |
Date: | Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:03:19 +0300 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) |
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Plus kvm's not suitable for some guests. I'm thinking old Windows guests with 16-bit kernel code here.kvm on amd will run these perfectly.So the "Guest Support Status" prominently on the front page of linux-kvm.org is wrong for current versions? It specifically mentions AMD hosts. (I notice AMD KVM != Intel KVM hasn't factored into this discussion yet...) Guest KVM tested Host CPU/bits Result ---------------------------------------------------------------- Windows 98SE kvm-63 Intel 32 Fails Windows 98SE kvm-80, 2.6.27.7 AMD 64 no way Windows 95 kvm-44, 2.6.23-rc8 AMD 64, 32 no way
Well, maybe there's some other bug in there. But kvm-amd 16 bit support is as good as the native cpu's. kvm-intel with the new 'unrestricted guest' should be the same.
It has come up before that kvm will eventually support 16-bit code better, although I got the impression that it would never support full 16-bit virtualisation accurately, so e.g. Windows 95 will not run on it, nor some other partially 16-bit OSes. Possibly not even very old versions of Linux, I'm not sure. Don't ask me _why_ I want to run them. :-) Just a data point that it's not just about the host hardware, and as far as I know kqemu can accelerate them.It falls back to qemu for 16-bit code.I was under the impression it was planned to remove TCG support when using KVM. If not, fine, it's ok for 16-bit code to run in TCG and probably better than vm86 or the in-kernel interpreter.
vm86 doesn't work on x86_64. kvm will run most 16-bit code natively, just have to complete task switch support and fix any bugs.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |