From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752825Ab0CRRCk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:02:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57953 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750945Ab0CRRCi (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:02:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:02:23 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Message-ID: <20100318170223.GB9756@elte.hu> References: <4BA20EB8.60707@redhat.com> <20100318114821.GB13168@elte.hu> <4BA21B09.6060706@redhat.com> <20100318130047.GA7424@elte.hu> <4BA23FE1.5050402@codemonkey.ws> <20100318151737.GA2875@elte.hu> <4BA250BF.80704@codemonkey.ws> <20100318162853.GB447@elte.hu> <4BA256FE.5080501@codemonkey.ws> <84144f021003180951s5207de16p1cdf4b9b04040222@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f021003180951s5207de16p1cdf4b9b04040222@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>>> There are all kernel space projects, going through Xorg would be a > >>>> horrible waste of performance for full-screen virtualization. It's fine > >>>> for the windowed or networked case (and good as a compatibility > >>>> fallback), but very much not fine for local desktop use. > >> > >> For the full-screen case (which is a very common mode of using a guest OS > >> on the desktop) there's not much of window management needed. You need to > >> save/restore as you switch in/out. > > > > I don't think I've ever used full-screen mode with my VMs and I use > > virtualization on a daily basis. > > > > We hear very infrequently from users using full screen mode. > > Sorry for getting slightly off-topic but I find the above statement > interesting. > > I don't use virtualization on daily basis but a working, fully integrated > full-screen model with VirtualBox was the only reason I bothered to give VMs > a second chance. From my point of view, the user experience of earlier > versions (e.g. Parallels) was just too painful to live with. That's the same i do, and that's what i'm hearing from other desktop users as well. The moment you work seriously in a guest OS you often want to switch to it full-screen, to maximize screen real-estate and to reduce host GUI element distractions. If it's just casual use of a single app then windowed mode suffices (but in that case performance doesnt matter much to begin with). I find the 'KVM mostly cares about the server, not about the desktop' attitude expressed in this thread troubling. > /me crawls back to his hole now... /me should do that too - this discussion is not resulting in any positive result so it has become rather pointless. Ingo