Bugs item #1998355, was opened at 2008-06-20 03:11
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by thekozmo
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=893831aid=1998355group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Anoosh Hosseini (anoosh) wrote:
Using RHEL4 base with up-to-date kernel from kernel.org. (enabled
virtio/kvm..). Checked makefiles and I am building with -mcmodel=kernel.
Any advise appreciated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# modprobe kvm-intel
FATAL: Error inserting kvm_intel
Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Avi,
This builds on your preprocessor work for cleaning up the DSDT and makes
it trivially easy to change the CPU and PCI hotplug slot count. I'm
thinking about splitting a few SSDTs out of the monolithic DSDT, and
generating some of the code at compile time should
David S. Ahern wrote:
Avi:
We did not get a chance to do this at the Forum. I'd be interested in
whatever options you have for reducing the scan time further (e.g., try
to get scan time down to 1-2 seconds).
I'm unlikely to get time to do this properly for at least a week, as
this will
(re-adding kvm@)
Anoosh Hosseini (anoosh) wrote:
BTW I see this issue with kvm-69. But not in kvm-68. Right now use
kvm-68's kvm-intel module along with kvm-69 simulation. Works fine.
-anoosh
I don't think anything special happened between kvm-68 and kvm-69. This
might be a toolchain
Mohammed Gamal wrote:
CPU Model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz
KVM version: kvm-69-1687-gd660add
Host Kernel: 2.6.26-rc5 (x86_64)
Guests: FreeDOS and Minix 3.1.2 32-bit
Command: qemu-system-x86_64 -hda /media/sda6/dos or minix image
Real mode guests (namely Minix 3 and FreeDOS
Yang, Sheng wrote:
From efba05901f8ffca03208217d075f679f78f3469d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sheng Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:41:10 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Flush all VPID tagged TLB when VMXON
Why is this needed? Don't we flush a vpid immediately after
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 09:49 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
From f02d2ccf01e8671d2da517f14a908d1df1cc42ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sheng Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:41:26 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: Report hardware virtualization features
The
Dor Laor wrote:
Yes, this is definitely helpful. However, I think that users will
expect cpu flags under /proc/cpuinfo.
Perhaps we should add a new line 'virt flags' to /proc/cpuinfo? I think
all the features are reported using msrs, so it can be done from
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
Bugs item #1998355, was opened at 2008-06-20 00:11
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bjrosen
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=893831aid=1998355group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
Anthony Liguori wrote:
With the default options, my idle winxp guest causes about 550
wakeups/sec which is pretty close to what I'd expect. I don't think
you'll get much better than that without using a dynticks guest.
According to powertop, I had about 15 kvm wakeups/sec with my previous
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 08:00:11AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I fail to see the point of handling the vapic page grab and ref
counting in __vcpu_run's heavyweight enter/exit path.
It's to avoid pinning the page indefinitely.
So move it to kvm_lapic_set_vapic_addr /
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 08:16:19AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Looks good, but we can aim higher. The cache_regs() API was always
confusing (I usually swap the two parts). If we replace all -regs
access with accessors, we can make it completely transparent.
It will be tricky in the
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mohammed Gamal wrote:
CPU Model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz
KVM version: kvm-69-1687-gd660add
Host Kernel: 2.6.26-rc5 (x86_64)
Guests: FreeDOS and Minix 3.1.2 32-bit
Command: qemu-system-x86_64 -hda
Yang, Sheng wrote:
On Sunday 22 June 2008 20:21:37 Avi Kivity wrote:
Dor Laor wrote:
Yes, this is definitely helpful. However, I think that users will
expect cpu flags under /proc/cpuinfo.
Perhaps we should add a new line 'virt flags' to /proc/cpuinfo? I think
all the features are
On Monday 23 June 2008 10:40:33 Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
On Sunday 22 June 2008 20:21:37 Avi Kivity wrote:
Dor Laor wrote:
Yes, this is definitely helpful. However, I think that users will
expect cpu flags under /proc/cpuinfo.
Perhaps we should add a new line 'virt flags'
16 matches
Mail list logo
