On 02/01/2011 07:21 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
Paolo,
I refactored the savevm functions. Could you give me your
comments?
I didn't review it thoroughly, but the abstractions seem okay.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to
2011/2/2 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 02/01/2011 07:21 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
Paolo,
I refactored the savevm functions. Could you give me your
comments?
I didn't review it thoroughly, but the abstractions seem okay.
Thanks. Since It got a bit messy, I wanted hear your
On 02/01/2011 09:58 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
Guest reads version (result: 2)
Guest starts reading data
Live migration; vcpu-arch.sversion is zeroed
Steal time update; vcpu-arch.sversion += 2; write to guest
Guest continues reading data
Guest reads version (result: 2)
So the guest
On 02/01/2011 05:57 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/28/2011 09:52 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
This patch accounts steal time time in kernel/sched.
I kept it from last proposal, because I still see advantages
in it: Doing it here will
On 02/01/2011 05:54 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
The guest must initialize the entire 64-byte structure to zero before
enabling the feature.
I honestly don't see why. But I also don't see why not...
Will update it.
Requiring the guest to initialize it to zero allows us to later assign
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 21:26 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-01 20:17, Glauber Costa wrote:
If the machine is stopped, we should not record two different tsc values
upon a save operation. The same problem happens with kvmclock.
But kvmclock is taking a different diretion, being now
If the machine is stopped, we should not record two different tsc values
upon a save operation. The same problem happens with kvmclock.
But kvmclock is taking a different diretion, being now seen as a separate
device. Since this is unlikely to happen with the tsc, I am taking the
approach here of
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:58:47PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 12:55, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:02:03PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
testing my KVM patches, I noticed that none of the 64-bit Windows
versions I have around (early Win7 2003 server) boot in
On 2011-02-02 13:35, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:58:47PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 12:55, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:02:03PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
testing my KVM patches, I noticed that none of the 64-bit Windows
versions I have
Avi noticed that we have to use guest's value for the version field,
instead of keeping track of it ourselves. If we don't do that,
the following situation can arise:
vcpu-arch.hv_clock.version is initialized to zero.
Guest reads version (result: 2)
Guest starts reading data
Live migration;
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
Screen (Stop 0x00b8).
Userspace APIC is broken since it may run with an outdated cr8, does
reverting
On 2011-02-02 13:16, Glauber Costa wrote:
If the machine is stopped, we should not record two different tsc values
upon a save operation. The same problem happens with kvmclock.
But kvmclock is taking a different diretion, being now seen as a separate
device. Since this is unlikely to happen
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
Screen (Stop 0x00b8).
Userspace APIC is broken since it may run
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:09:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
On 02/02/2011 03:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:09:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 03:14:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 03:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:09:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Glauber Costa glom...@redhat.com wrote:
Avi noticed that we have to use guest's value for the version field,
instead of keeping track of it ourselves. If we don't do that,
the following situation can arise:
vcpu-arch.hv_clock.version is initialized to zero.
Avi noticed that we have to use guest's value for the version field,
instead of keeping track of it ourselves. If we don't do that,
the following situation can arise:
vcpu-arch.hv_clock.version is initialized to zero.
Guest reads version (result: 2)
Guest starts reading data
Live migration;
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
Screen (Stop 0x00b8).
Userspace APIC is broken since it may run
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
Screen (Stop
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
Ah, good (or not
Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com writes:
If bootindex is specified on command line a string that describes device
in firmware readable way is added into sorted list. Later this list will
be passed into firmware to control boot order.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
Just noticed
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:08:07PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com writes:
If bootindex is specified on command line a string that describes device
in firmware readable way is added into sorted list. Later this list will
be passed into firmware to control boot
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:10:04PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:08:07PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com writes:
If bootindex is specified on command line a string that describes device
in firmware readable way is added into sorted
Adds support for new tests.
Adds new clean function for destructive tests.
Corrects kernel crash log monitor.
Signed-off-by: Jiří Župka jzu...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor ldok...@redhat.com
---
client/tests/kvm/scripts/virtio_console_guest.py | 63 +--
1) Check if port /dev/vport0p0 was created.
2) Guest read/write big data from host when host is disconnected.
3) Host send data to guest port and guest not read any data from port.
4) Remove and again install modules of virtio_console.
5) Test maximim count of ports in guest machine.
- Max
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yes, I think doing this in the host is much simpler,
just send an interrupt after there's a decent amount
of space in the queue.
Having said that the simple heuristic that I coded
might be a bit too simple.
From the debugging out
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:33:49PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:14 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
w/i guest change, I played around the parameters,for example: I
could
get 3.7Gb/s with 42% CPU BW increasing from
On 02/02/2011 05:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
And yet, both are synchronized via qemu_mutex. So we're still missing
something in this picture.
Run apic_set_irq on the vcpu?
static void apic_set_irq(APICState *s, int vector_num, int trigger_mode)
{
apic_irq_delivered +=
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 14:05,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:39:45AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yes, I think doing this in the host is much simpler,
just send an interrupt after there's a decent amount
of space in the queue.
Having said that the simple
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:42:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:33:49PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:14 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
w/i guest change, I played around the parameters,for
On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:52:11PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On
On 2011-02-02 17:29, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:52:11PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 17:29, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:52:11PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi
On 2011-02-02 17:39, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 17:29, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:52:11PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 17:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:39:45AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yes, I think doing this in the host is much simpler,
just send an interrupt after there's a decent amount
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 17:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And this is with sndbuf=0 in host, yes?
And do you see a lot of tx interrupts?
How packets per interrupt?
Nope, sndbuf doens't matter since I never hit reaching sock wmem
condition in vhost. I am still playing around, let me know
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:10:35AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 17:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:39:45AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yes, I think doing this in the host is much
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
OK, but this should have no effect with a vhost patch
which should ensure that we don't get an interrupt
until the queue is at least half empty.
Right?
There should be some coordination between guest and vhost. We shouldn't
count
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:42:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:33:49PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:14 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
w/i guest change, I played around the parameters,for
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 20:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
How many packets and bytes per interrupt are sent?
Also, what about other values for the counters and other counters?
What does your patch do? Just drop packets instead of
stopping the interface?
To have an understanding when
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:11:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
OK, but this should have no effect with a vhost patch
which should ensure that we don't get an interrupt
until the queue is at least half empty.
Right?
There should
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:09:34PM -0600, Steve Dobbelstein wrote:
I am working on a KVM network performance issue found in our lab running
the DayTrader benchmark. The benchmark throughput takes a significant hit
when running the application server in a KVM guest verses on bare metal.
We
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 02/02/2011 12:38:47 PM:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:09:34PM -0600, Steve Dobbelstein wrote:
I am working on a KVM network performance issue found in our lab
running
the DayTrader benchmark. The benchmark throughput takes a significant
hit
when
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 20:27 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:11:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
OK, but this should have no effect with a vhost patch
which should ensure that we don't get an interrupt
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 11:29:35AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 20:27 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:11:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
OK, but this should have no effect with a
On 2011-02-02 20:05, Blue Swirl wrote:
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
---
target-i386/helper.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/helper.c b/target-i386/helper.c
index 1217452..4bbf9b1 100644
--- a/target-i386/helper.c
Below is a proposal for a new API for PPC to allow KVM clients
to set MMU state in a vcpu.
BookE processors have one or more software managed TLBs and
currently there is no mechanism for Qemu to initialize
or access them. This is needed for normal initialization
as well as debug.
There are 4
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 22:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, this is also the only case where the queue is stopped, no?
Yes. I got some debugging data, I saw that sometimes there were so many
packets were waiting for free in guest between vhost_signal guest xmit
callback. Looks like the
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 22:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, this is also the only case where the queue is stopped, no?
Yes. I got some debugging data, I saw that sometimes there were so many
packets were waiting for free in
On 02.02.2011, at 21:33, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Below is a proposal for a new API for PPC to allow KVM clients
to set MMU state in a vcpu.
BookE processors have one or more software managed TLBs and
currently there is no mechanism for Qemu to initialize
or access them. This is needed
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 23:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 22:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, this is also the only case where the queue is stopped, no?
Yes. I got some debugging data, I saw that sometimes there were so
many
packets were waiting for free
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:33:41 +0100
Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 02.02.2011, at 21:33, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Below is a proposal for a new API for PPC to allow KVM clients
to set MMU state in a vcpu.
BookE processors have one or more software managed TLBs and
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:34 PM
To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; qemu-de...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: RFC: New API for PPC for vcpu mmu access
On 02.02.2011, at
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:11:15PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
Then we can support mask bit operation of assigned devices now.
Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang sh...@linux.intel.com
+int kvm_vm_ioctl_register_msix_mmio(struct kvm *kvm,
+ struct kvm_msix_mmio_user
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 23:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I think I need to define the test matrix to collect data for TX xmit
from guest to host here for different tests.
Data to be collected:
-
1. kvm_stat for VM, I/O exits
2. cpu utilization for both guest
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:41:33PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 23:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 22:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, this is also the only case where the queue is stopped, no?
Yes. I got some debugging data, I saw
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 07:59 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Let's look at the sequence here:
guest start_xmit()
xmit_skb()
if ring is full,
enable_cb()
guest skb_xmit_done()
disable_cb,
printk free_old_xmit_skbs -- it was between more
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:05:56PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 23:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I think I need to define the test matrix to collect data for TX xmit
from guest to host here for different tests.
Data to be collected:
-
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:09:14PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 07:59 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Let's look at the sequence here:
guest start_xmit()
xmit_skb()
if ring is full,
enable_cb()
guest skb_xmit_done()
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:51:32PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Just did so, and I can no longer reproduce the problem. Hmm...
If there is no problem in the logic of this commit (and I do not see
one yet) then we somewhere miss kicking vcpu when interrupt, that
should be
handled, arrives?
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:34 PM
To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; qemu-de...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: RFC: New API for PPC for vcpu mmu access
On 02.02.2011, at
67 matches
Mail list logo
