* Anca Emanuel anca.eman...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd even argue that that C library is obviously something the
kernelshould offer as well - so klibc is the way to go and would
help usfurther streamline this and keep Linux quality high.
I think there is code to share. Why not ?
The biggest
[offtopic] Any news from Mathieu Desnoyers Generic Ring Buffer
Library http://www.efficios.com/ringbuffer ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
[...]
Outside of the kernel tree, you can do your own decisions. If
someone thinks it's a great idea to write device emulation in
python (I would love that!), he could go in and implement it
without having to worry about Linus possibly rejecting it
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
3) The block probing code replicates a well known CVE from three
years ago[1]. Using kvm-tool, a malicious guest could write the
qcow2 signature to the zero sector and use that to attack the host.
We don't support
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org writes:
Hi Anthony,
On 11/04/2011 03:38 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Linus,
Please consider pulling the latest KVM tool tree from:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually not sure why KVM tool got QCOW support in the first
place. You can have anything QCOW provides if you use btrfs (among
several other FSs).
To make it easy for people to use their existing images. I would
Hi,
As far I know it is pretty much impossible to figure the
foreground/background colors of the terminal you are running on. You
Glad to hear that, I thought I hadn't researched that much (I did). Hope
somebody appears and tell us how it is done :-)
In xterm, '\e]10;?\e\\' and
(re-adding cc)
On 11/09/2011 09:35 PM, Walter Haidinger wrote:
Am 09.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Avi Kivity:
Actually, it looks like an OpenBSD bug. According to the AMD
documentation:
Well, the OpenBSD developers are very confident that is
a bug in the KVM cpu emulation and _not_ in
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:13:56PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 23:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:57:28PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 22:52 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:24:47PM +0200,
On 11/09/2011 07:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 11:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Migration with qcow2 is not a supported feature for 1.0. Migration is
only supported with raw images using coherent shared storage[1].
[1] NFS is only
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:45:17PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Frederic,
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 07:42:04AM +, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:20:04AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
Right. Originally it could be enabled/disabled. Right now it cannot be,
but I
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
Start with a clean read/write raw image. Probing declares it raw.
Guest writes QCOW
On 11/10/2011 11:04 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com
wrote:
[...]
Start with a clean read/write raw
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:04 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com
wrote:
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Markus Armbruster
On 11/10/2011 11:14 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Trying and failing. sVirt will deny access to all files except those
explicitly allowed by libvirt.
It still allows the guest to read more than enough files which it
shouldn't be reading.
Unless you configure sVirt on a per-guest basis...
sVirt
When mapping a memory region, split it to page sizes as supported
by the iommu hardware. Always prefer bigger pages, when possible,
in order to reduce the TLB pressure.
The logic to do that is now added to the IOMMU core, so neither the iommu
drivers themselves nor users of the IOMMU API have to
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:14 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Trying and failing. sVirt will deny access to all files except those
explicitly allowed by libvirt.
It still allows the guest to read more than enough files which it
shouldn't be
On 11/10/2011 11:34 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:14 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Trying and failing. sVirt will deny access to all files except those
explicitly allowed by libvirt.
It still allows the guest to
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
I'm actually not sure why KVM tool got QCOW support in the first
place. You can have anything QCOW provides if you use
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:34 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:14 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Trying and failing. sVirt will deny access to all files except those
On 11/10/2011 11:49 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
It does, but the hypervisor can only access the guest's images, and a
few internal files (like the qemu-kvm executable and its libraries).
What about devices? You let the guest read and write to devices as
well (/dev/kvm for example, or network
The following patches add nested EPT support to Nested VMX.
Nested EPT means emulating EPT for an L1 guest, allowing it use EPT when
running a nested guest L2. When L1 uses EPT, it allows the L2 guest to set
its own cr3 and take its own page faults without either of L0 or L1 getting
involved. In
Add a module option nested_ept determining whether to enable Nested EPT.
Nested EPT means emulating EPT for an L1 guest so that L1 can use EPT when
running a nested guest L2. When L1 uses EPT, it allows the L2 guest to set
its own cr3 and take its own page faults without either of L0 or L1
KVM's existing shadow MMU code already supports nested TDP. To use it, we
need to set up a new MMU context for nested EPT, and create a few callbacks
for it (nested_ept_*()). We then need to switch back and forth between this
nested context and the regular MMU context when switching between L1 and
The existing code for handling cr3 and related VMCS fields during nested
exit and entry wasn't correct in all cases:
If L2 is allowed to control cr3 (and this is indeed the case in nested EPT),
during nested exit we must copy the modified cr3 from vmcs02 to vmcs12, and
we forgot to do so. This
When the existing KVM MMU code creates a shadow page table, it assumes it
has the normal x86 page table format. This is obviously correct for normal
shadow page tables, and also correct for AMD's NPT.
Unfortunately, Intel's EPT page tables differ in subtle ways from ordinary
page tables, so when
kvm_set_cr3() attempts to check if the new cr3 is a valid guest physical
address. The problem is that with nested EPT, cr3 is an *L2* physical
address, not an L1 physical address as this test expects.
As the comment above this test explains, it isn't necessary, and doesn't
correspond to anything
Some additional comments to preexisting code:
Explain who (L0 or L1) handles EPT violation and misconfiguration exits.
Don't mention shadow on either EPT or shadow as the only two options.
Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El n...@il.ibm.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 21 +++--
1 file
If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction.
Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El n...@il.ibm.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h |2
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 112 +++
2 files changed, 114 insertions(+)
---
Advertise the support of EPT to the L1 guest, through the appropriate MSR.
This is the last patch of the basic Nested EPT feature, so as to allow
bisection through this patch series: The guest will not see EPT support until
this last patch, and will not attempt to use the half-applied feature.
Some trivial code cleanups not really related to nested EPT.
Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El n...@il.ibm.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c |6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- .before/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c 2011-11-10 11:33:59.0 +0200
+++ .after/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
Update the documentation to no longer say that nested EPT is not supported.
Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El n...@il.ibm.com
---
Documentation/virtual/kvm/nested-vmx.txt |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- .before/Documentation/virtual/kvm/nested-vmx.txt2011-11-10
On 11/10/2011 11:58 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
KVM's existing shadow MMU code already supports nested TDP. To use it, we
need to set up a new MMU context for nested EPT, and create a few callbacks
for it (nested_ept_*()). We then need to switch back and forth between this
nested context and the
On 11/10/2011 11:59 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
When the existing KVM MMU code creates a shadow page table, it assumes it
has the normal x86 page table format. This is obviously correct for normal
shadow page tables, and also correct for AMD's NPT.
Unfortunately, Intel's EPT page tables differ in
Am 09.11.2011 22:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 11/09/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 02:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:35:54AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 04/10] nEPT: Fix page
table format in nested EPT:
@@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct kvm_mmu {
bool nx;
u64 pdptrs[4]; /* pae */
+ u64 link_shadow_page_set_bits;
...
+static void link_shadow_page(u64 *sptep, struct
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 03:12:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I do not want to introduce
incidental regressions. For instance the patch below will introduce
regression on my Nehalem cpu. It reports value 0x44 in cpuid10.ebx which
means that unhalted_reference_cycles is not available (bit
On 11/10/2011 02:58 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:45:17PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Frederic,
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 07:42:04AM +, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:20:04AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
Right. Originally it could be
On 11/10/2011 03:31 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Kai Huangmail.kai.hu...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems the unmap function don't take phys as parameter, does this mean
domain-ops-unmap will walk through the page table to find out the
actual page size?
The short
On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction.
+ case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT:
+ if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT_BIT))
+ nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
+
On 11/10/2011 01:03 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 04/10] nEPT: Fix
page table format in nested EPT:
@@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct kvm_mmu {
bool nx;
u64 pdptrs[4]; /* pae */
+ u64 link_shadow_page_set_bits;
...
+static void
On 11/10/2011 11:58 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Add a module option nested_ept determining whether to enable Nested EPT.
Nested EPT means emulating EPT for an L1 guest so that L1 can use EPT when
running a nested guest L2. When L1 uses EPT, it allows the L2 guest to set
its own cr3 and take its
On 11/10/2011 11:57 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
The following patches add nested EPT support to Nested VMX.
Nested EPT means emulating EPT for an L1 guest, allowing it use EPT when
running a nested guest L2. When L1 uses EPT, it allows the L2 guest to set
its own cr3 and take its own page faults
On 11/10/2011 11:58 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
KVM's existing shadow MMU code already supports nested TDP. To use it, we
need to set up a new MMU context for nested EPT, and create a few callbacks
for it (nested_ept_*()). We then need to switch back and forth between this
nested context and the
Intel CPUs report non-available architectural events in cpuid leaf
0AH.EBX. Use it to disable events that are not available according
to CPU.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 14 ++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h |
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Intercept RDPMC and forward it to the PMU emulation code.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 15 ++-
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Needed to deliver performance monitoring interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |2 +-
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h |1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Add a helper function that emulates the RDPMC instruction operation.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 15 +++
2
KVM needs to know perf capability to decide which PMU it can expose to a
guest.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 15 +++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 11 +++
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 13 -
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c |7 +++
3 files changed, 20
Provide a CPUID leaf that describes the emulated PMU.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 30 +-
1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index b88426c..2c44b05 100644
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Intercept RDPMC and forward it to the PMU emulation code.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 15 +++
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
Use perf_events to emulate an architectural PMU, version 2.
Based on PMU version 1 emulation by Avi Kivity.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 48
arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig|1 +
arch/x86/kvm/Makefile |2 +-
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
RDPMC is only privileged if CR4.PCE=0. check_rdpmc() already implements this,
so all we need to do is drop the Priv flag.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c |2 +-
1 files
This patchset exposes an emulated version 2 architectural performance
monitoring unit to KVM guests. The PMU is emulated using perf_events,
so the host kernel can multiplex host-wide, host-user, and the
guest on available resources.
The patches are against next branch on kvm.git.
If you want to
On 11/10/2011 02:21 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/10/2011 01:03 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 04/10] nEPT: Fix
page table format in nested EPT:
@@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct kvm_mmu {
bool nx;
u64 pdptrs[4]; /*
On 11/10/2011 11:59 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
When the existing KVM MMU code creates a shadow page table, it assumes it
has the normal x86 page table format. This is obviously correct for normal
shadow page tables, and also correct for AMD's NPT.
Unfortunately, Intel's EPT page tables differ in
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16:16PM +0800, cody wrote:
On 11/10/2011 03:31 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Kai Huangmail.kai.hu...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems the unmap function don't take phys as parameter, does this mean
domain-ops-unmap will walk through the page table
On 11/09/2011 08:21 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 20:00 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 07:56 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 07:44 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
The fact that a host cpu supports a feature doesn't mean that QEMU
and KVM
will also support it,
On 11/06/2011 11:35 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/04/2011 11:16 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
I have done kernbench tests several times on my desktop, but it shows
very well:
before patchset:
real 212.27
real 213.47
real 204.99
real 200.58
real 199.99
real 199.94
real 201.51
real 199.83
real 198.19
On 11/10/2011 12:46 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Anthony,
1) The RTC emulation is limited to emulating CMOS and only the few fields used
to store the date and time. If code is added to arch/x86 that tries to make
use of a CMOS field for something useful, kvm-tool is going to fall over.
None of
Hi Anthony,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
It's not just the qcow2 implementation or even the block layer. This pull
requests adds a userspace TCP/IP stack to the kernel and yet netdev isn't on
the CC and there are no Ack's from anyone from the
On 11/10/2011 03:28 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
I have tested RHEL.6.1 setup/boot/reboot/shutdown and the complete
output of scan_results.py is attached.
The result shows the performance is improved:
before:After:
570529
555538
552531
546
On 11/01/2011 05:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 11/01/2011 03:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/31/2011 10:12 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
+4.59 KVM_DIRTY_TLB
+
+Capability: KVM_CAP_SW_TLB
+Architectures: ppc
+Type: vcpu ioctl
+Parameters: struct kvm_dirty_tlb (in)
+Returns: 0 on success, -1 on error
+
On 10/31/2011 02:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/31/2011 09:53 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Right now we transfer a static struct every time we want to get or set
registers. Unfortunately, over time we realize that there are more of
these than we thought of before and the extensibility and
On 10/31/2011 02:38 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/31/2011 09:53 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
With hugetlbfs support emerging on e500, we should also support KVM
backing its guest memory by it.
This patch adds support for hugetlbfs into the e500 shadow mmu code.
@@ -673,12 +674,31 @@ static inline
On 11/10/2011 04:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
looks like this is different in the 32x86 ABI.
We can pad explicitly if you prefer.
The size is 16 on 32-bit ppc -- the alignment of __u64 forces this. It
I would prefer if we keep this stable :). There's no good reason to
pad it - ppc64
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 01/10] nEPT: Module
option:
On 11/10/2011 11:58 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Add a module option nested_ept determining whether to enable Nested EPT.
...
In the future, we can support emulation of EPT for L1 *always*, even when L0
itself
On 11/10/2011 09:08 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16:16PM +0800, cody wrote:
On 11/10/2011 03:31 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Kai Huangmail.kai.hu...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems the unmap function don't take phys as parameter,
On 11/10/2011 04:21 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 01/10] nEPT: Module
option:
On 11/10/2011 11:58 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Add a module option nested_ept determining whether to enable Nested EPT.
...
In the future, we can support
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 02/10] nEPT: MMU
context for nested EPT:
+static int nested_ept_init_mmu_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ int r = kvm_init_shadow_mmu(vcpu, vcpu-arch.mmu);
...
+ vcpu-arch.walk_mmu = vcpu-arch.nested_mmu;
...
Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org writes:
Hi Anthony,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
It's not just the qcow2 implementation or even the block layer. This pull
requests adds a userspace TCP/IP stack to the kernel and yet netdev isn't on
the CC
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:35:34PM +0800, cody wrote:
Yes I totally agree page-size is not required for unmap operations
and should not be added as parameter to map/unmap operations. I am
not saying the unmap operation, but the IOTLB flush operation. My
point is we also may also need to add
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 01/10] nEPT: Module
option:
By this, do you mean without the nested_ept option, or without the
hypothetical EPT on shadow page tables feature?
Er, both. The feature should be controlled on a per-guest basis, not
per host.
..
It's
On 11/10/2011 05:14 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 01/10] nEPT: Module
option:
By this, do you mean without the nested_ept option, or without the
hypothetical EPT on shadow page tables feature?
Er, both. The feature should be
On 11/10/2011 04:40 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 02/10] nEPT: MMU
context for nested EPT:
+static int nested_ept_init_mmu_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ int r = kvm_init_shadow_mmu(vcpu, vcpu-arch.mmu);
...
+
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:17 +0800, Kai Huang wrote:
And another question: have we considered the IOTLB flush operation? I
think we need to implement similar logic when flush the DVMA range.
Intel VT-d's manual says software needs to specify the appropriate
mask value to flush large pages, but
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org writes:
Hi Anthony,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
It's not just the qcow2 implementation or even the block layer. This pull
requests
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Right now we transfer a static struct every time we want to get or set
registers. Unfortunately, over time we realize that there are more of
these than we thought of before and the extensibility and flexibility of
transferring a
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:09:45PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
The latter was already commented out, the former is redundant as well.
We always get the latest changes after return from the guest via
kvm_arch_post_run.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
Applied, thanks.
--
To
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 05:39:47PM +0200, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote:
With the following series of patches we are starting to implement
some basic Microsoft Hyper-V Enlightenment functionality. This series
is mostly about adding support for relaxed timing, spinlock,
and virtual apic.
For more
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 02:19:00PM +0200, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
qemu-kvm passes numa/SRAT topology information for smp_cpus to SeaBIOS.
However
SeaBIOS always expects to setup max_cpus number of SRAT cpu entries
(MaxCountCPUs variable in build_srat function of Seabios). When qemu-kvm
Hi,
I am performing some benchmarks on KVM migration on two different types of VM.
One has 4GB RAM and the other 32GB. More or less idle, the 4GB VM takes about 20
seconds to migrate on our hardware while the 32GB VM takes about a minute.
With a reasonable amount of memory activity going on (in
On 11/10/2011 05:05 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Right now we transfer a static struct every time we want to get or set
registers. Unfortunately, over time we realize that there are more of
these than we thought of before and the
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
What I took from the feedback was that Kevin wanted to defer open until the
device model started. That eliminates the need to reopen or have a
invalidation
callback.
I think it would be good for Kevin to comment here though because I might
have
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 05:49:42PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 47
++
arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c| 51
+
include/linux/kvm.h | 32 +++
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 03:28:50PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
Which brings me to another question I have been pondering... do we even
have a consensus on exactly *when* the IOTLB should be flushed?
Well, sort of, there is still the outstanding idea of the
iommu_commit() interface for the
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/09/2011 07:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 11:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Migration with qcow2 is not a supported feature for 1.0. Migration is
only supported with raw images using coherent
On 11/10/2011 10:50 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Kevin Wolfkw...@redhat.com wrote:
What I took from the feedback was that Kevin wanted to defer open until the
device model started. That eliminates the need to reopen or have a invalidation
callback.
I think it would be good for Kevin to comment
On 11/10/2011 02:55 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 07:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 11:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Migration with qcow2 is not a supported feature for 1.0. Migration is
only supported with raw images using
On 11/10/2011 04:41 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 09.11.2011 22:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 11/09/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 02:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:35:54AM
On 11/10/2011 02:55 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 07:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/09/2011 11:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/09/2011 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Migration with qcow2 is not a supported feature for 1.0. Migration is
only supported with raw images using
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:27:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What does libvirt actually do in the monitor prior to migration
completing on the destination? The least invasive way of doing
delayed open of block devices is probably to make -incoming create a
monitor and run a main loop
On 11/10/2011 12:42 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:27:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What does libvirt actually do in the monitor prior to migration
completing on the destination? The least invasive way of doing
delayed open of block devices is probably to make
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 18:09 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The requirement for the DMA-API is, that the IOTLB must be consistent
with existing mappings, and only with the parts that are really mapped.
The unmapped parts are not important.
This allows nice optimizations like your 'batched unmap'
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 18:34 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
This patch adds an option to provide information about redirection
of terminal redirection to a PTY device within 'kvm stat'.
Usage:
'kvm stat -p [term] -n [instance_name]'
Will print information about redirection of terminal
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 02/10] nEPT: MMU
context for nested EPT:
This is all correct, but the code in question parses the EPT12 table
using the ia32 page table format. They're sufficiently similar so that
it works, but it isn't correct.
Bit 0: EPT readable,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 01:11:42PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/10/2011 12:42 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:27:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What does libvirt actually do in the monitor prior to migration
completing on the destination? The least invasive
On 11/10/2011 02:06 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 01:11:42PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/10/2011 12:42 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:27:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What does libvirt actually do in the monitor prior to migration
On 11/10/2011 9:09 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The plan is to have a single DMA-API implementation for all IOMMU
drivers (X86 and ARM) which just uses the IOMMU-API. But to make this
performing reasonalbly well a few changes to the IOMMU-API are
required. I already have some ideas which we can
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
