2009/12/17 Michael D Labriola <mlabriol@xxxxxxxx>:
> xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/16/2009 02:16:27 AM:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:24:30PM -0600, Brandon Turner wrote:
>> >
>> > On 12/15/2009 12:58 PM, Andrew Lyon wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Brandon Turner <bturner@bltweb.
>> net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I am trying
>> > >> to get the Nvidia binary drivers working on my Ubuntu Dom0.
>> > >>
>> > >> I used the kernel sources at
>> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git to
> build my
>> > >> kernel
>> > > Nvidia binary drivers do not work with pv_ops dom0 kernel, it is
>> > > possible to get them working with a "classic" dom0 kernel (i.e
> forward
>> > > ported 2.6.18 patches) but it requires some kludges and only works
> on
>> > > certain kernel versions.
>> > >
>
> Oh, bugger. I hadn't gotten to testing this yet... :-(
>
>> > > Andy
>> > >
>> >
>> > Thank you. I'm not sure how I missed this. It was even discussed on
>> > this list back in July:
>> >
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2009-07/msg00333.html
>> >
>> > I read on the Xen Wiki
>> > (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels) that future Xen
>> > versions (3.5/4.0) will default to the pv_ops dom0 kernel. As most of
>> > the Nvidia drivers are distributed in binary format, does this mean
> that
>> > Nvidia would have to modify their driver code (aka specifically
> support
>> > Xen pv_ops dom0) for this to work with future Xen versions? In this
>> > case it probably wouldn't be wise for me to go down the binary drivers
>> > path and should either try something else or settle on nv.
>> >
>> > Does anyone know how long the "old-style" dom0 kernel will be
>> > supported? Will Xen 3.5/4.0 support both, with pv-ops as the default,
>> > or is the idea to eventually drop the old-style kernel. As a noob to
>> > Xen, what is the significance of kernel version 2.6.18? Did something
>> > in the kernel change that doesn't allow for an older style dom0
> kernels,
>> > or is it just more effort then its worth to branch the newer releases
>> > (especially with all the pv_ops success).
>> >
>>
>> Xen 4.0 will have the pv_ops dom0 as the default kernel, but 2.6.18-xen
>> will be supported aswell, afaik.
>>
>> 2.6.18-xen has been the default for so long because that's what Citrix
>> uses in their commercial Citrix XenServer products.
>>
>> Another reason is the fact that the 2.6.18-xen patches had to be
>> rewritten to be acceptable into upstream Linux.. and that has taken
>> long, first the general pv_ops framework had to be written, then the
>> domU support for pv_ops, and now finally dom0 support.
>>
>
> Anyone have any idea when/if the NVIDIA drivers will work with a pv_ops
> dom0?
>
The code to make the nvidia binary drivers work with classic xen
patched kernels was contributed as a patch by somebody outside of
nvidia, they merged the code but I don't think they actively support
it, so it is unlikely that they will support pv_ops when running on
xen.
> What if I manage to get VGA passthrough to a domU? Will the NVIDIA
> drivers work there?
>
They should work.
> How about alternatives video cards... The only feature of the NVIDIA
> driver that we really required was enabling a second monitor, which didn't
> work with the opensource 'nv' driver. Would an ATI card fare better here?
>
I've recently stopped using nvidia cards on my xen systems because I
needed to be able to debug problems without having a tainted kernel, I
am now using radeon hd2400 and x1950 cards, the x1950's have excellent
3d/2d support in the open source driver and can be found on ebay very
cheaply.
> -Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home