On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 15:19 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
So what's the big drawback of just making sched_clock return
sched_clock_unstolen?
When there is no steal time involved, they will just be equal anyway.
And this way, everybody that relies on sched_clock for whatever reason,
will
On 09/03/2010 01:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
+static void print_monitor(const char *buf)
+{
+ [...]
+}
+
+void puts_monitor(const char *s)
+{
+ spin_lock(mon_lock);
+ print_serial(s);
Is this intended?
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
This is the 2nd version of get_dirty_log cleanup.
Changelog:
In version 1, I changed the timing of copy_to_user() in the
powerpc's get_dirty_log by mistake. This time, I've kept the
timing and tests on ppc box now look OK to me!
Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
kvm_get_dirty_log() is used by ia64 and powerpc, but not used by x86 anymore.
Furtheremore, in the case of ia64, the sanity checks in it have to be done
before kvm_ia64_sync_dirty_log(), resulting in duplicate checks.
So we open-code kvm_get_dirty_log() into arch's get_dirty_log.
Signed-off-by:
We move sanity check and lock related parts to the arch independent code.
This will help future cleanups.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
---
arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c | 14 ++
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c | 14 ++
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
also sprach Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com [2010.09.03.0732 +0200]:
Begin: Assembling all MD arrays ... [ 4.711415] BUG: unable to handle
kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0078
[ 4.715356] IP: [a074]
virtio_check_driver_offered_feature+0xb/0x2c
AMD's public CPUID specification has been updated and some bits have
got names. Add them to properly describe new CPU features.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara andre.przyw...@amd.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h |4
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
The recently updated CPUID specification names new SVM feature bits.
Add them to the list of reported features.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara andre.przyw...@amd,com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h |7 +++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c |6 ++
2 files changed, 13
The AMD SSE5 feature set as-it has been replaced by some extensions
to the AVX instruction set. Thus the bit formerly advertised as SSE5
is re-used for one of these extensions (XOP).
Although this changes the /proc/cpuinfo output, it is not user visible, as
there are no CPUs (yet) having this
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:23:24PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
Hello Xiaohui,
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 17:23 +0800, xiaohui@intel.com wrote:
Our goal is to improve the bandwidth and reduce the CPU usage.
Exact performance data will be provided later.
Have you had any performance data to
vhost should set worker to NULL on cgroups attach failure,
so that we won't try to destroy the worker again on close.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
Dave, no need to bother with this one unless you really want to -
I'll put it on my tree.
This is a follow up to Eric's
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:55:04PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:01 -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 18:43 -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
Also I found some vhost performance regression on the new
kernel with tuning. I used to get 9.4Gb/s, now I couldn't get
Is this something we can depend on for future releases then?
If we decide now to build a virtual hosting farm on 0.12, will we be
able to use live migration in the future if we decide we want to upgrade
to 0.13 or later?
N.
On 08/31/2010 02:24 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
It should work between
Hello.
I noticed that window7, unlike windowsXP as I played with
previously, poses quite high load on host when idle. On
my machine, host cpu usage is about 25% when one single-cpu
win7 guest is running with -usbdevice tablet option.
Here's a typical kvm_stats when such a guest is idling:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:29:47AM -0400, Joerg Roedel wrote:
This patch changes the rip handling in the vmrun emulation
path from using next_rip to the generic kvm register access
functions.
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel joerg.roe...@amd.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c |6 +++---
1 files
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:56:51AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 09/03/2010 01:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
+static void print_monitor(const char *buf)
+{
+[...]
+}
+
+void puts_monitor(const char *s)
+{
+spin_lock(mon_lock);
+print_serial(s);
Is
So we can connect this chardev to a monitor, for example using a socket.
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com
diff --git a/hw/testdev.c b/hw/testdev.c
index a8c49a3..2017798 100644
--- a/hw/testdev.c
+++ b/hw/testdev.c
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
struct testdev {
ISADevice dev;
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 13:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:23:24PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
Hello Xiaohui,
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 17:23 +0800, xiaohui@intel.com wrote:
Our goal is to improve the bandwidth and reduce the CPU usage.
Exact performance
On 03.09.2010, at 14:21, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:29:47AM -0400, Joerg Roedel wrote:
This patch changes the rip handling in the vmrun emulation
path from using next_rip to the generic kvm register access
functions.
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel joerg.roe...@amd.com
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Rodrigo Campos rodr...@sdfg.com.ar wrote:
Hi!
I wanted to know the status of PCI device assignment.
As far as I can see in the webpage and in the mailing list, it seems to be
working ok if you have VT-d support on the motherboard and cpu. But if it
isn't
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Pierre-Philipp Braun pbr...@wda-fr.org wrote:
I'm having a little issue starting a KVM guest. Is that a known Issue on
VIA Nano vmx capable processors ?
Hello Pierre-Philipp,
I had a discussion on this list back in April which included someone from VIA.
2010/9/3 Rodrigo Campos rodr...@sdfg.com.ar:
Hi!
I wanted to know the status of PCI device assignment.
As far as I can see in the webpage and in the mailing list, it seems to be
working ok if you have VT-d support on the motherboard and cpu. But if it
isn't
too much trouble, I wanted some
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 04:38:00PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Rodrigo Campos rodr...@sdfg.com.ar wrote:
Also, I wanted to confirm that there is no limit in the maximun PCI cards
that
could be given to a guest (like VMWare which only lets you give at most
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 02:48:46AM +0200, Kenni Lund wrote:
2010/9/3 Rodrigo Campos rodr...@sdfg.com.ar:
Hi!
I wanted to know the status of PCI device assignment.
As far as I can see in the webpage and in the mailing list, it seems to be
working ok if you have VT-d support on the
Never got any feedback on this. I don't really have a strong opinion on
it either way, but I'll need to know which way to go with my rebased
patches. Also nice if we can avoid polluting upstream with unnecessary
changes.
I believe it would suffice also to revert these two commits:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV) wrote:
Bruno Cesar Ribas wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
This quick test is with QEMU patches that are on mailing lists but not merged
into mainline.
Being said that, I don't think they really affect this.
is there any work to
We move sanity check and lock related parts to the arch independent code.
This will help future cleanups.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
---
arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c | 14 ++
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c | 14 ++
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
27 matches
Mail list logo
