On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
I've tried to test the patches, but I see a vm-entry failure code 7 on
the very first vmentry. Guest is Fedora 12 x86-64 (2.6.32.9-70.fc12).
Hi, as you can see, I posted a new set of patches, which apply
On 10/17/2010 02:03 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
I've tried to test the patches, but I see a vm-entry failure code 7 on
the very first vmentry. Guest is Fedora 12 x86-64 (2.6.32.9-70.fc12).
Hi, as you can see, I
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
patch. In short, try running the L0 kernel with the nosmp option,
What are the problems with smp?
Unfortunately, there appears to be a bug which causes KVM with nested VMX to
hang when SMP is enabled, even if you
On 10/17/2010 02:39 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
patch. In short, try running the L0 kernel with the nosmp option,
What are the problems with smp?
Unfortunately, there appears to be a bug which causes KVM with nested
On Sunday 13 June 2010 20:22:33 Nadav Har'El wrote:
Hi Avi,
This is a followup of our nested VMX patches that Orit Wasserman posted in
December. We've addressed most of the comments and concerns that you and
others on the mailing list had with the previous patch set. We hope you'll
find
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010, Dong, Eddie wrote about RE: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
Thnaks for the posting and in general the patches are well written.
I like the concept of VMCSxy and I feel it is pretty clear (better than my
previous naming as well), but there are some confusing inside
On 11.07.2010, at 10:27, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010, Dong, Eddie wrote about RE: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX,
v5:
Thnaks for the posting and in general the patches are well written.
I like the concept of VMCSxy and I feel it is pretty clear (better than my
previous naming
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010, Alexander Graf wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX,
v5:
Thinking about this - it would be perfectly legal to split the VMCS into two
separate structs, right? You could have one struct that you map directly into
the guest, so modifications to that struct don't trap
On 07/11/2010 03:49 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
In any case, the obvious problem with this whole idea on VMX is that it
requires a modified guest hypervisor, which reduces its usefulness.
This is why we didn't think we should advertise the ability to bypass
vmread/vmwrite in L1 and write directly
On 07/11/2010 11:27 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
1: Basically there are 2 diferent type in VMCS, one is defined by hardware,
whose layout is unknown to VMM. Another one is defined by VMM (this patch)
and used for vmcs12.
The former one is using struct vmcs to describe its data instance, but the
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
nesting-
aware L1 guest hypervisors to actually use that internal structure to
modify
vmcs12 directly, without vmread/vmwrite and exits.
No, they can't, since (for writes) L0 might cache the information
On 07/11/2010 06:39 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
nesting-
aware L1 guest hypervisors to actually use that internal structure to
modify
vmcs12 directly, without vmread/vmwrite and exits.
No, they can't, since
Nadav Har'El wrote:
Hi Avi,
This is a followup of our nested VMX patches that Orit Wasserman
posted in December. We've addressed most of the comments and concerns
that you and others on the mailing list had with the previous patch
set. We hope you'll find these patches easier to understand,
On 06/14/2010 04:03 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Let's try to get this merged quickly.
I'll start fixing the individual patches and resending them individually, and
when I've fixed everything I'll resubmit the whole lot. I hope that this time
I can do it in a matter of days, not months.
On 06/13/2010 03:22 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Hi Avi,
This is a followup of our nested VMX patches that Orit Wasserman posted in
December. We've addressed most of the comments and concerns that you and
others on the mailing list had with the previous patch set. We hope you'll
find these patches
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about Re: [PATCH 0/24] Nested VMX, v5:
Overall, very nice. The finer split and better documentation really
help reviewing, thanks.
Thank you for the review and all the accurate comments!
Let's try to get this merged quickly.
I'll start fixing
16 matches
Mail list logo
