From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>In article ,   
   >>Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>>>In article ,   
   >>>>Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >>>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>>>>>Oh cool.  I always thought that MIPS would be hard to virtualize   
   >>>>>>because of the ksegs and soft-TLBs.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Indeed, it took another decade and a half before MIPS added   
   >>>>>virtualization support to the architecture, IIRC;  Cavium   
   >>>>>was also a MIPS shop (until 2012, when we started the switch   
   >>>>>to ARM64) and we had looked at the MIPS virtualization extensions around   
   >>>>>that time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Same with x86, of course: how long after VMWare did their   
   >>>>binary-rewriting thing before Intel introduced VMX?   
   >>>   
   >>>AMD implemented SVM before Intel did VMX.  It was   
   >>>generally available circa 2005, so a few years after VMware.   
   >>   
   >>Other way around, wasn't it?  Intel released VMX in late 2005   
   >>while AMD released SVM in mid 2006.   
   >   
   >Yes, you're correct.   
   >   
   >We had an early Pacifica (SVM) spec before it was released publically   
   >in 2005.   
      
   Ah, cool.   
      
   >I was thinking of the nested page table feature (which we relied   
   >on heavily) which came before Intel's EPT.  These were the features   
   >that VMware and Xen really wanted to avoid the need to trap page   
   >table updates by the guest (or paravirt them).   
      
   Ah, yes, absolutely.  Shadow paging to multiplex the guest's   
   address space on the host virtual address space is not fun.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)