On 6/19/14, 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> On Jun
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> On Jun
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>
> >>On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>
> >>On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L.
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
On
Il 18/06/2014 19:59, Eric Northup ha scritto:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > > mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this
> > > behavior, they
> > > should still
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this
behavior, they
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19
Il 18/06/2014 19:59, Eric Northup ha scritto:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:46:01PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM,
On 6/19/14, 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:10:21PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 3:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
On 6/19/14, 2:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:53:36PM +0300,
"Gabriel L. Somlo" writes:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> > mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
>> > they
>> > should still be handled correctly, i.e., check
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:30:07AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
> Quoting Gabriel's post http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg103792.html :
>
> [...]
>
> > E.g., OS X 10.5 *does* check CPUID, and panics if it doesn't find it.
> > It needs the MONITOR cpuid flag to be on, *and* the actual
> >
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
> > they
> > should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
> > generate
> >
Quoting Gabriel's post http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg103792.html :
[...]
> E.g., OS X 10.5 *does* check CPUID, and panics if it doesn't find it.
> It needs the MONITOR cpuid flag to be on, *and* the actual
> instructions to work.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
On 6/18/14, 8:59 PM, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
> they
> should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
> generate
> exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 18/06/2014 18:43, Bandan Das ha scritto:
>>> > mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this
>>> > behavior, they
>>> > should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
>>> > generate
>>> > exceptions when required. mwait and
Il 18/06/2014 18:43, Bandan Das ha scritto:
> mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
> should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
generate
> exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
Is
Nadav Amit writes:
> mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
> they
> should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
> generate
> exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
Is this necessary ? They
Il 18/06/2014 16:19, Nadav Amit ha scritto:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
and are not
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
and are not handled in that case. This patch performs the
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
and are not handled in that case. This patch performs the
Il 18/06/2014 16:19, Nadav Amit ha scritto:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
and are not
Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il writes:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
Is this
Il 18/06/2014 18:43, Bandan Das ha scritto:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be executed in real-mode
Is this
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 18/06/2014 18:43, Bandan Das ha scritto:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this
behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
generate
exceptions when required. mwait and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
generate
exceptions when required. mwait and monitor may also be
On 6/18/14, 8:59 PM, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior, they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and generate
exceptions when
Quoting Gabriel's post http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg103792.html :
[...]
E.g., OS X 10.5 *does* check CPUID, and panics if it doesn't find it.
It needs the MONITOR cpuid flag to be on, *and* the actual
instructions to work.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Nadav Amit
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
should still be handled correctly, i.e., check execution conditions and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:30:07AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
Quoting Gabriel's post http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg103792.html :
[...]
E.g., OS X 10.5 *does* check CPUID, and panics if it doesn't find it.
It needs the MONITOR cpuid flag to be on, *and* the actual
instructions to
Gabriel L. Somlo gso...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Eric Northup wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nadav Amit na...@cs.technion.ac.il wrote:
mwait and monitor are currently handled as nop. Considering this behavior,
they
should still be handled
42 matches
Mail list logo
