On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 08:38:11AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Dave Chinner [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 t
* Dave Chinner [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
> > Previous post
> 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
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
> a
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 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 pa
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 minim
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 SAN-vend
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 cha
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, M
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 f
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 proper
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 recomme
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 extend
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 f
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 n
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:
> > >
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 l
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 IO
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 permissio
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
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 th
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-o
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:25:46AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> >> >else if (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) ||
> >> req_int_win)
> >> >> >kvm_x86_ops->enable_irq_window(vcpu);
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> What about the check in inject_pendi
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 id
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
> >>
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 Tosatti
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: I
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 ha
* KOSAKI Motohiro [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 analysis
> > at http:
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.
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
