* Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:30 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
Neat!
As something of a lesson of history, I'd suggest picking a more unique name
while it's still a prototype :-)
I disagree, i
On 03/31/2011 07:30 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
So that's where you disappeared - I was following your old repository.
The goal of this tool is to provide a clean, from-scratch, lightweight
KVM host tool implementation that can boot
On 04/03/2011 09:21 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:30 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
Neat!
As something of a lesson of history, I'd suggest picking a more unique name
On 04/02/2011 01:14 PM, Ren, Yongjie wrote:
Hi All,
This is KVM test result against kvm.git
a3e2cba1e702cfe15e2ebb20a75b88f02c834d3f based on kernel 2.6.38+, and
qemu-kvm.git 2c9bb5d4e5ae3b12ad71bd6a0c1b32003661f53a.
We found 1 bug about guest cannot boot with 8 VFs or more.
The VT-d bug
Hi Anthony,
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
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
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2011 09:21 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:30 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
Neat!
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:30:56PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
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
On 04/03/2011 12:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2011 09:21 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:30 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to
On 04/03/2011 11:51 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
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
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:17:56PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
But, I agree that now we have to concern slightly large VM change
parhaps
(or parhaps not). Ok, it's good opportunity to fill out some thing.
Historically, Linux MM has free memory are waste memory policy, and It
Hm. OK, I may misread.
Can you please explain the reason why de-duplication feature need to
selectable and
disabled by defaut. explicity enable mean this feature want to spot
corner case issue??
Yes, because given a selection of choices (including what you
mentioned
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
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
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that this is a development prototype for the time being: there's no
networking support and no graphics support, amongst other missing
essentials.
Mind posting a roadmap? I would put smp support near the top.
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 12:01 +0300, Alon Levy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:30:56PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
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
On 04/03/2011 12:59 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that this is a development prototype for the time being: there's no
networking support and no graphics support, amongst other missing
essentials.
Mind posting a
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 01:01:38PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 12:01 +0300, Alon Levy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:30:56PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the native Linux KVM tool!
The goal of this tool is to provide a
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
SMP, networking, and simpler guest to host communication from shell
are most interesting missing features for me.
If it is to be more than a toy, then Windows (really generic guest) support,
manageability, live
On 04/03/2011 01:17 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
SMP, networking, and simpler guest to host communication from shell
are most interesting missing features for me.
If it is to be more than a toy, then Windows (really
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:53:34AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Yes, that's really unfortunate. I don't care too much what we call the
tool but I definitely agree with Ingo that 'kvm' is more discoverable
Indeed. It's great for finding info on keyboard-video-mouse switches. :)
--
A search of
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
It's definitely not a toy, it's my main virtualization tool of choice
for kernel development! ;-)
The features you mention are crucial for servers but not for desktop.
I personally don't have much need for managing and
This patchset implements segment checks for the emulator. These are needed
for guests which can both get the emulator to execute an instruction from an
unprivilged context, and also rely on segmentation for security.
Avi Kivity (7):
KVM: x86 emulator: Add helpers for memory access using
It's going to get more complicated soon.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 14 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 7a1cc3c..95291fc 100644
---
So it can call emulate_gp() without forward declarations.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 30 +++---
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index
For reuse later.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 14 +++---
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index c3e00b3..cab25ef 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 63
1 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index cab25ef..ae49919 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
Will help later adding proper segment checks.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 75 +--
1 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index
Preparing to add segment checks.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 47 +++
1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 95291fc..0fc5112
On 03/31/2011 04:58 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
On 04/01/2011 05:10 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
This patch adds a check_perm callback for each opcode into
the instruction emulator. This will be used to do all
necessary permission checks on instructions before checking
whether they are intercepted or not.
@@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ struct decode_cache
On 04/01/2011 05:10 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hi,
this is version 4 of this patch-set. The main change to the previous
version is that now the intruction permission checks for interceptable
instructions are seperated to make the checks before the actual
intercept condition is checked.
For this I
On 04/03/2011 05:11 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/03/2011 12:59 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that this is a development prototype for the time being:
there's no
networking support and no graphics support, amongst
On 04/03/2011 04:09 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 04/03/2011 05:11 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/03/2011 12:59 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that this is a development prototype for the time being:
there's no
On 03/28/2011 06:32 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawayoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
This stops CMP r/m, reg to write back the data into memory.
Pointed out by Avi.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawayoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c |2 ++
1 files
On 03/28/2011 06:34 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawayoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
Recently, emulate_push family functions started to call writeback()
during their emulation. This clearly shows that the usual writeback()
which is done at the end of x86_emulate_insn() cannot
I think it's easier to just write directly instead of going through
'struct operand'.
Probably emulate_push() should do the write (look at segmented_write()
in my 'Emulator segment checks' patchset), and everything else can call
that. 'struct operand' is for multiplexing register/memory
On 04/03/2011 06:59 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
I think it's easier to just write directly instead of going through
'struct operand'.
Probably emulate_push() should do the write (look at segmented_write()
in my 'Emulator segment checks' patchset), and everything else can call
that.
IMHO, we are using dst operand for too many things.
In the case of CMP, I first tried to use src2 to clearly follow the
SDM's second source operand terminology. But it seemed not worth
it now.
Ah, CMP is encoded as dst/src, so it's best to just disable writeback
there. We could
On 04/03/2011 07:09 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
IMHO, we are using dst operand for too many things.
In the case of CMP, I first tried to use src2 to clearly follow the
SDM's second source operand terminology. But it seemed not worth
it now.
Ah, CMP is encoded as
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Dave Chinner wrote:
Fundamentally, if you just switch off memory reclaim to avoid the
latencies involved with direct memory reclaim, then all you'll get
instead is ENOMEM because there's no memory available and none will be
reclaimed. That's even more fatal for the system
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
1) Some bios don't have such knob. btw, OK, yes, *I* can switch NUMA off
completely
because I don't have such bios. 2) bios level turning off makes some side
effects,
example, scheduler load balancing don't care numa anymore.
Well then lets add a
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:32:16PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:17:56PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
But, I agree that now we have to concern slightly large VM change
parhaps
(or parhaps not). Ok, it's good opportunity to fill out some thing.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
Looks like the posix-timer issue is completely gone, to be replaced by the
load balancer.
Copying peterz.
Hi all,
I feel bad about such a big cc list, but I don't know who can be left out :/
Still got the performance
42 matches
Mail list logo
