On 09/26/2010 10:25 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
btw, speaking of drastic changes to nsvm, one thing I'd like to see is
the replacement of those kmaps with something like put_user_try() and
put_user_catch(). It should be as fast (or faster) than kmaps, and not
affect preemptibility.
Yes, I
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:36:57AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/26/2010 10:25 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
btw, speaking of drastic changes to nsvm, one thing I'd like to see is
the replacement of those kmaps with something like put_user_try() and
put_user_catch(). It should be as fast
On 09/27/2010 04:18 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:36:57AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/26/2010 10:25 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
btw, speaking of drastic changes to nsvm, one thing I'd like to see is
the replacement of those kmaps with something like
On 09/22/2010 09:20 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:47:06PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
In any case, while I obviously agree that it's your prerogative not to
merge
code that you consider ugly, I still
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21:
Don't worry, I want to merge nvmx as soon as possible (but not sooner).
Thanks, I'm happy to hear that.
So I don't think there has been any lack of reviews. I don't think that
getting more reviews is the most
On 09/26/2010 04:28 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
I'm worried about maintaining core vmx after nvmx is merged, not nvmx
itself. There are simply many more things to consider when making a change.
Right, but how can we avoid this issue, assuming that you do want nvmx in?
We can't avoid it.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
I don't expect drastic changes, but then, I still don't understand it well.
Part of the review process is the maintainer becoming familiar (and, in
some cases, comfortable) with the code. The nit-picking is often just
me
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:04:38AM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Hi, thanks for the summary.
I also listened-in on the call. I'm glad these issues are being discussed.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about KVM call minutes for Sept 21:
Nested VMX
- looking for forward progress
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept
21:
There is only one outstanding serious issue from my point of view: event
injection path. I want it to be similar to how nested SVM handles it. I
don't see why it can't be done the same way for VMX too. The way
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept
21:
There is only one outstanding serious issue from my point of view: event
injection path. I want it to be similar to how nested SVM handles it. I
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept
21:
People keep looking for reasons to justify the cost of the effort, dunno
why because it's cool isn't good enough ;) At any rate, that was mainly
a question of how it might be useful for production kind
On 09/22/2010 12:49 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept
21:
People keep looking for reasons to justify the cost of the effort, dunno
why because it's cool isn't good enough ;) At any rate, that was mainly
a question of how
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:47:06PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
In any case, while I obviously agree that it's your prerogative not to merge
code that you consider ugly, I still don't see any particular problem to
start
with
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:03:55PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/22/2010 12:49 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for
Sept 21:
People keep looking for reasons to justify the cost of the effort, dunno
why because it's cool
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
I believe that in the current state of the code, nested VMX adds little
complexity to the non-nested code - just a few if's. Of course, it also
adds a lot of new code, but none of this code gets run in the non-nested
case.
As it
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about Re: KVM call minutes for Sept
21:
are reworked even if maintained. Nadav said that he doesn't even know
how this part of code is working. This is worrying.
Hi,
I just wanted to clarify that reason I don't know exactly how this specific
part
Nested VMX
- looking for forward progress and better collaboration between the
Intel and IBM teams
- needs more review (not a new issue)
- use cases
- work todo
- merge baseline patch
- looks pretty good
- review is finding mostly small things at this point
- need some correctness
On 09/21/2010 01:05 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
Nested VMX
- looking for forward progress and better collaboration between the
Intel and IBM teams
- needs more review (not a new issue)
- use cases
- work todo
- merge baseline patch
- looks pretty good
- review is finding mostly small
Hi, thanks for the summary.
I also listened-in on the call. I'm glad these issues are being discussed.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about KVM call minutes for Sept 21:
Nested VMX
- looking for forward progress and better collaboration between the
Intel and IBM teams
I'll be very
* Nadav Har'El (n...@math.technion.ac.il) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about KVM call minutes for Sept 21:
Nested VMX
- looking for forward progress and better collaboration between the
Intel and IBM teams
I'll be very happy if anyone, be it from Intel or somewhere
20 matches
Mail list logo
