On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:52:18PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino reported that guest refused to boot and qemu
> complained with:
> kvm_set_phys_mem: error unregistering overlapping slot: Invalid argument
>
> It is caused by commit 235e8982ad that did double free for the memslot
>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:35:21AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/06/2013 17:33, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:47:18PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
> >>
> >> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
> >>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:33:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/06/2013 17:32, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:43:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
> >>
> >> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
> >>
Il 02/06/2013 17:33, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:47:18PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
>>
>> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
>> less than the number of iterations
>>
>> * there is an 8th counter which
Il 02/06/2013 17:32, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:43:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
>>
>> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
>> less than the number of iterations
>>
> Is it documented? It is strange
Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
>> but not from mod/rm.
>>
>> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
>> not enough
Il 02/06/2013 17:05, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> Anthony requested that patches be made that generate the ACPI tables
>>> in QEMU for the upcoming hotplug work, so that they could be evaluated
>>> to see if they truly do need to live in QEMU or if the code could live
>>> in the firmware. There we
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing s
On 06/01/13 01:01, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I guess -bios would load coreboot. Coreboot would siphon the data
>>> necessary for ACPI table building through the current (same) fw_cfg
>>> bottleneck, build the tables,
>>
>> Yes.
>
Anthony Liguori writes:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:40:47AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Rusty Russell
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> Anthony Liguori writes:
>>> >>> Rusty Russell writes:
>>> >>>
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:28:26PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> >> Yet the structure definitions are descriptive, capturing layout, size
>> >> and endianness in natural a format readable by any C programmer.
>> >
>> >>From an API design point of view, here are the
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> 1. s/These are devices are/These devices are
> 2. s/Thefirst/The first
> 3. s/, Guest should/. Guest should
>
> Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino
> ---
> virtio-spec.lyx | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Thanks... I changed ", Guest" to ". The
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Rusty Russell writes:
>>
>> > Anthony Liguori writes:
>> >> Forcing a guest driver change is a really big
>> >> deal and I see no reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason
>> >> to.
>>
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios problem without
Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino reported that guest refused to boot and qemu
> complained with:
> kvm_set_phys_mem: error unregistering overlapping slot: Invalid argument
>
> It is caused by commit 235e8982ad that did double fre
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> but not from mod/rm.
>
> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
> not enough.
>
Did I missed unit test patch? :)
> Cc: gnata..
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:52:18PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino reported that guest refused to boot and qemu
> complained with:
> kvm_set_phys_mem: error unregistering overlapping slot: Invalid argument
>
> It is caused by commit 235e8982ad that did double free for the memslot
>
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 04:32:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > So what I didn't like from the start about
> > pending_events is that it introduces two locked instruction on each
> > interrupt injection path, your patch makes it worse by change one of
> > those locked instruction to cmpxchg, whi
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
> Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
> ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios problem without need for PV.
> So how this patch series co
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:40:43PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:09:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:05:42PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 28, 201
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:09:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:05:42PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 23, 2
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:47:18PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
>
> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
> less than the number of iterations
>
> * there is an 8th counter which causes out of bounds accesses
> to gp_event or ch
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:43:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> This patch includes two fixes for SB:
>
> * the 3rd fixed counter ("ref cpu cycles") can sometimes report
> less than the number of iterations
>
Is it documented? It is strange for "architectural" counter to behave
differently on
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:58:07PM +0800, 李春奇 wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'm now reading codes of kvm-unit-tests and I found that some of the
> test cases for x86 is only designed for x86_64 (including access.flat,
> apic.flat, emulator.flat, idt_test.flat and so on). I wonder why these
> cases are not
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:05:42PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:41:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Juan is not avail
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:41:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Juan is not available now, and Anthony asked for
> > > agenda to be sent early.
> > > S
Il 02/06/2013 15:14, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> Can you show what is the case in my patch where you have coalescing? I
> You'ev said it in some of your emails. Quoting:
> " INIT-INIT-SIPI-INIT-SIPI
>
> your version would do many SIPIs, while mine would do just one."
Cancelling is very dif
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:48:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/05/2013 11:18, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
> >>> vpu0:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:34:26PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > There were discussions on potentially introducing a middle component
> > to generate the tables. Coreboot was raised as a possibility, and
> > David thought it woul
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:45:55PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/31/13 09:09, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> > Why is updating the ACPI tables in seabios viewed as such a burden?
> > Either qemu does it, or seabios... (And, OVMF too, but I don't think
> > you guys are concerned with that. :)
>
> I
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:51:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> implementation for both Xen and KVM.
>
High level question here. We have a big hope for "P
31 matches
Mail list logo
