On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
The spec indicates we need to check the TSS and IOPL based permissions
before the intercept (vmx agrees). With the code as is, it happens
afterwards.
One way to do this is to have an ExtraChecks bit in the opcode::flags.
Then
* KOSAKI Motohiro kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com [2011-03-31 14:40:33]:
The following series implements page cache control,
this is a split out version of patch 1 of version 3 of the
page cache optimization patches posted earlier at
Previous posting http://lwn.net/Articles/425851/ and
On 03/31/2011 09:14 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
The spec indicates we need to check the TSS and IOPL based permissions
before the intercept (vmx agrees). With the code as is, it happens
afterwards.
One way to do this is to have
On 03/30/2011 07:42 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
On 03/30/2011 10:17 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
On 03/30/2011 09:26 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:19 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
The below patch changes base_addresss to base_address.
Note:
On 03/30/2011 08:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Based on Gleb's idea, fix race between nmi injection and enabling
nmi window in a simpler way.
Signed-off-by: Marcelo
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 08:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Based on Gleb's idea, fix race between nmi injection and enabling
nmi window
On 03/31/2011 11:24 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 08:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Based on Gleb's idea, fix
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:25:46AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
snip
else if (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) ||
req_int_win)
kvm_x86_ops-enable_irq_window(vcpu);
What about the check in inject_pending_events()?
Didn't
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:47:03PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Based on Gleb's idea, fix race between nmi injection and enabling
nmi window in a simpler way.
Signed-off-by: Marcelo
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:18:28AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 09:14 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
The spec indicates we need to check the TSS and IOPL based permissions
before the intercept (vmx agrees). With the code
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:25:46AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 11:24 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 08:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011
On 03/31/2011 11:42 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:18:28AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 09:14 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
The spec indicates we need to check the TSS and IOPL based permissions
Currently we sync registers back and forth before/after exiting
to userspace for IO, but during IO device model shouldn't need to
read/write the registers, so we can as well skip those sync points. The
only exaception is broken vmware backdor interface. The new code sync
registers content during
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:01 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong nowadays,
since it does not take the KVM CPUID
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:03:37AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 11:42 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:18:28AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 09:14 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
The
On 03/31/2011 12:12 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:01 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure.
The implementation was meant to satisfy the CPUID specification, but
did not properly check for extended and standard leaves and also
didn't account
On 03/31/2011 03:13 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure.
The implementation was meant to satisfy the CPUID specification, but
did not properly check for
Am Monday 28 March 2011 schrieb David Martin:
- Original Message -
On 3/28/11 2:46 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M. Jessa wrote:
[...]
One LUN per image allows you to implement failover, LVM doesn't (but
cluster-LVM does). I recommend using one LUN
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/31/2011 03:13 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure.
The implementation was meant to satisfy the CPUID specification, but
did not
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure.
The implementation was meant to satisfy the CPUID specification, but
did not properly check for extended and standard leaves and also
didn't account
That's what CLVM is for, it propagates the volume changes to every member of
the 'cluster'.
David Martin
- Original Message -
Am Monday 28 March 2011 schrieb David Martin:
- Original Message -
On 3/28/11 2:46 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M.
On 03/31/2011 02:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 07:42 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
On 03/30/2011 10:17 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
On 03/30/2011 09:26 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:19 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
The below patch
Am Thursday 31 March 2011 schrieben Sie:
That's what CLVM is for, it propagates the volume changes to every member
of the 'cluster'.
Oh, right. I didn't know about clvm until now.
It sounds very promising though, certainly better than working with the
proprietary API of whoever your
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
The goal of this tool is to provide a clean, from-scratch, lightweight
KVM host tool implementation that can boot Linux guest images (just a
hobby, won't be big and professional like QEMU) with no BIOS
dependencies and with only the
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
1) zone reclaim doesn't work if the system has multiple node and the
workload is file cache oriented (eg file server, web server, mail server,
et al).
because zone recliam make some much free pages than zone-pages_min and
then new page
Hi,
I am using Qemu-KVM-0.12.5 on Intel Xeon (Vt-x enabled) processors and
monitoring the system using htop on the host. On the processors that
are running Qemu-KVM I am seeing a 50/50 split between userspace and
guest (gu: in htop). I have pinned the vCPU qemu-kvm threads to
specific host CPUs
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:00:26AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
The following series implements page cache control,
this is a split out version of patch 1 of version 3 of the
page cache optimization patches posted earlier at
Previous posting http://lwn.net/Articles/425851/ and analysis
at
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:00:26AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
The following series implements page cache control,
this is a split out version of patch 1 of version 3 of the
page cache optimization patches posted earlier at
Previous posting http://lwn.net/Articles/425851/ and analysis
* Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com [2011-04-01 08:40:33]:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:00:26AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
The following series implements page cache control,
this is a split out version of patch 1 of version 3 of the
page cache optimization patches posted earlier at
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 08:38:11AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
* Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com [2011-04-01 08:40:33]:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:00:26AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
The following series implements page cache control,
this is a split out version of patch 1 of version
On 31.03.2011, at 05:21, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:35 AM
To: ag...@suse.de
Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4]
On 31.03.2011, at 10:06, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Liu Yu-B13201
Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
On 31.03.2011, at 11:01, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:43 PM
To: Liu Yu-B13201
Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] KVM: PPC: e500: Save/restore SPE
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:11:48 +0200
Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 31.03.2011, at 05:21, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
I think the patch miss the bit to handle the case that
if guest clear the MSR_SPE.
Doh.
So that MSR[SPE] should always be traped.
It doesn't have to be trapped
35 matches
Mail list logo
