This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] terminology of nestedhvm

To: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] terminology of nestedhvm
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:55:43 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:01:43 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100913101338.GB3844@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B22A8C149F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100913101338.GB3844@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: ActTLGU+LQ3AulZ3RamDSUvkbfFxEQArMe9Q
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] terminology of nestedhvm
Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 10:51 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284375082), Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we
>> support nestedPVM in future?  If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is
>> better. Just 2 cents.
> We already do support nesting PV in HVM.  I doubt we'll ever support
> PV-in-PV.

I believe so.

> I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does.
Mmm, I may be bias since to me VM is same with HVM. But PVM is special. HVM is 
invented to distinguish with PVM only, but in nested virtualization, if we 
don't have PVM, then the existing of HVM is not that high priority. But I can 
follow if that is the wish.

But at least it should be nested_vcpu rather than nested HVM, since we are 
talking about per VCPU stuff.
Of course nestedhvm_vcpu is fine too though it is much longer.

Or just use nvcpu, nhvm?

Thx, Eddie
Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>