Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    A Comparison of Software and Hardware Techniques For x86 Virtualization

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Hamouda
    This document compares software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. Classical virtualization methods like deprivileging and using primary/shadow structures were inefficient due to frequent traps. Software virtualization uses binary translation to avoid traps, though hardware virtualization extensions directly execute guest code. Experiments show that while hardware enables near-native speeds, software virtualization is preferable for I/O workloads and hardware for system calls. Overall, both software and hardware virtualization perform equally despite maturity differences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    A Comparison of Software and Hardware Techniques For x86 Virtualization

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Hamouda
    77 views18 pages
    This document compares software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. Classical virtualization methods like deprivileging and using primary/shadow structures were inefficient due to frequent traps. Software virtualization uses binary translation to avoid traps, though hardware virtualization extensions directly execute guest code. Experiments show that while hardware enables near-native speeds, software virtualization is preferable for I/O workloads and hardware for system calls. Overall, both software and hardware virtualization perform equally despite maturity differences.

    Original Title

    HWvsSW

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document compares software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. Classical virtualization methods like deprivileging and using primary/shadow structures were inefficient due to frequent traps. Software virtualization uses binary translation to avoid traps, though hardware virtualization extensions directly execute guest code. Experiments show that while hardware enables near-native speeds, software virtualization is preferable for I/O workloads and hardware for system calls. Overall, both software and hardware virtualization perform equally despite maturity differences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    77 views18 pages

    A Comparison of Software and Hardware Techniques For x86 Virtualization

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Hamouda
    This document compares software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. Classical virtualization methods like deprivileging and using primary/shadow structures were inefficient due to frequent traps. Software virtualization uses binary translation to avoid traps, though hardware virtualization extensions directly execute guest code. Experiments show that while hardware enables near-native speeds, software virtualization is preferable for I/O workloads and hardware for system calls. Overall, both software and hardware virtualization perform equally despite maturity differences.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 18

    A Comparison of Software and

    Hardware Techniques for x86


    Virtualization

    Keith Adams, Ole Agesen


    VMware

    Presented by Keith Rutkowski


    Overview
    ● Introduction
    ● Classical Virtualization
    ● Software Virtualization
    ● Hardware Virtualization
    ● Comparisons / Experiments
    ● Conclusion
    Introduction
    ● Historically x86 has lacked HW virtualization
    ● Paravirtualization and guest OS modding
    produces great results, but not always possible
    ● Currently best VMMs use binary translation
    ● Now with AMD and Intel providing virtualization
    extensions, we can evaluate performance
    between hardware and software virtualization
    Classical Virtualization
    ● What is “virtualization”?
    – Popek & Goldberg in 1974
    – Fidelity
    ● Software on VMM executes identically to on hardware
    allowing for some timing effects
    – Performance
    ● Majority of guest instructions executed directly by
    hardware
    – Safety
    ● The VMM manages all hardware resources
    Methods of Classical Virtualization
    ● De-privileging
    – Run guest OS at reduced privilege level so that
    privileged instructions trap to the VMM
    – VMM then emulates the HW performing the
    instruction
    ● Primary and shadow structures
    – Privileged state of HW is different than guest OS's
    expectation
    – Fake the privileged HW register values in a shadow
    structure
    Methods of Classical Virtualization
    ● Memory traces
    – Needed to keep coherency of shadow structures
    – Guest OS page table entries are write-protected so
    shadow copies can be modified when trap occurs
    – DMA devices must be protected from reads and
    writes to trigger a trap for VMM to keep shadow
    copy of memory region
    ● Traps are expensive, so what else can we try?
    – Improve the guest OS / VMM interface
    – Improve the VMM / hardware interface
    Software Virtualization
    ● Interpreter
    – Literally pretends to be an x86 processor executing
    instructions
    – BAD!!! One interpreted instruction requires
    hundreds of real instructions to execute
    ● Binary translation
    – Instructions are “interpreted” on demand in chunks
    – Translated instructions are a safe instruction subset
    – Most instructions are 1:1 translation
    – Re-addressing concerns for accessing memory
    Software Virtualization
    ● Binary translation
    (source)
    Software Virtualization
    ● Binary translation (translated)
    Software Virtualization
    ● Adaptive binary translation
    – Detect frequently trapping code, retranslate to avoid
    traps, patch new code into execution chain
    – Group load/stores in “batch” calls to trap only once
    Hardware Virtualization
    ● Provide virtual registers to fool guest OS
    ● Introduce a guest privilege mode
    – “vmrun” instruction switches to guest mode for
    guest OS execution
    – traps return back to normal kernel mode for VMM
    execution
    ● Still no MMU virtualization though... =(
    Comparisons / Experiments
    ● Software vs. hardware
    – Trap elimination – adaptive BT replaces most traps
    which hardware must encounter
    – Emulation speed – adaptive BT predecoded
    instructions beats hardware “accelerated” traps
    – Callout avoidance – BT avoids callout costs, but
    hardware performs them faster still
    – Code density is preserved among the two
    ● Hardware and software suffer different
    overheads and causes for the overheads
    Comparisons / Experiments
    ● Mature SW vs. first generation HW
    Comparisons / Experiments
    ● Mature SW vs. first generation HW
    Comparisons / Experiments
    ● Mature SW vs. first generation HW
    Conclusion
    ● New hardware extensions allow x86 direct
    guest OS execution
    ● Hardware vs. software
    – Both execute computational bound code at near
    native speed
    – Software VMM is preferable for I/O bound code
    – Hardware VMM is preferable for system call bound
    code
    ● Adding MMU virtualization benefits to HW will
    help
    Conclusion
    ● Hybrid solutions could offer the best of both
    worlds
    ● Despite the maturity of the software solutions
    and the recent appearance of the hardware
    solutions, both perform equally
    ● Most practical scenarios benefit from software
    virtualization though
    Questions?

    You might also like