X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when the respective kernel
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:18:58PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:52:48PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 14.09.2009, at 15:23, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:18:58PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result
On 14.09.2009, at 18:14, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:52:48PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 14.09.2009, at 15:23, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:18:58PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 06:25:20PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
having succeeded. The hardware_enable_all caller calls
hardware_disable_all (kvm_usage_count--) when enabling fails.
But it does not hold any lock in between hardware_enable_all
and hardware_disable_all.
So its unsafe if
On 14.09.2009, at 18:46, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 06:25:20PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
having succeeded. The hardware_enable_all caller calls
hardware_disable_all (kvm_usage_count--) when enabling fails.
But it does not hold any lock in between hardware_enable_all
On 14.09.2009, at 15:23, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:18:58PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from
On 09/09/2009 05:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when the respective kernel
On 06/18/2009 12:56 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
I can test suspend/resume for you if you don't have a friendly
machine. I have a personal interest in keeping it working :)
Thinking about it again - there's only the atomic dec_and_test vs.
read thing and the suspend test missing.
Is the
On 16.06.2009, at 17:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/16/2009 05:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Please tell me you tested suspend/resume with/without VMs and cpu
hotunplug/hotplug.
I tested cpu hotplugging. On the last round I tested suspend/
resume, but
this time I couldn't because my machine
On 06/15/2009 02:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM
On 06/15/2009 03:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:30:05PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/15/2009 02:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
On 06/16/2009 05:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Please tell me you tested suspend/resume with/without VMs and cpu
hotunplug/hotplug.
I tested cpu hotplugging. On the last round I tested suspend/resume, but
this time I couldn't because my machine can't do suspend :-(.
So I'll try hard and
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when the respective kernel
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:30:05PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
On 15.06.2009, at 14:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:30:05PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 02:25:01PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
I don't want to fight political battles here.
So stop that crap.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when the respective kernel
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when
On 17.03.2009, at 13:04, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid
On 05.11.2008, at 21:58, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:41:04AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when the respective kernel
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using
Avi Kivity wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
We'll be in a nice fix if we can only enable virtualization on some
processors; that's the reason hardware_enable() was originally
specified as returning void.
I don't see an easy way out, but it's hardly a likely event.
I don't think
Alexander Graf wrote:
We'll be in a nice fix if we can only enable virtualization on some
processors; that's the reason hardware_enable() was originally
specified as returning void.
I don't see an easy way out, but it's hardly a likely event.
I don't think there's any way we can
Avi Kivity wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
[snip]
static int kvm_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
{
-hardware_enable(NULL);
+if (atomic_read(kvm_usage_count))
+hardware_enable(NULL);
return 0;
}
Move the test to hardware_enable()? It's repeated too often.
Avi Kivity wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates
Avi Kivity wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates
Am Mittwoch, 5. November 2008 schrieb Alexander Graf:
printk(KERN_INFO kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU%d\n,
cpu);
[...]
printk(KERN_INFO kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU%d\n,
cpu);
[...]
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
When you are at it, could move these printk to the arches that atually
enable/disable virtualization?
For example you could do something like
if (callback) {
printk ...;
callback();
}
And then you could remove kvm_arch_hardware_enable/disable
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the
virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid
TLB
entries (svm).
Currently
Alexander Graf wrote:
In any case, I'll defer applying until Eduardo's kdump/reboot changes
go in, since they touch the same places, and Eduardo's changes are
much harder to test.
I agree.
Apart from that, do I get an ACK for it, so I can at least put it into
our package and rest assured
Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
Currently KVM activates virtualization when
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:41:04AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
X86 CPUs need to have some magic happening to enable the virtualization
extensions on them. This magic can result in unpleasant results for
users, like blocking other VMMs from working (vmx) or using invalid TLB
entries (svm).
38 matches
Mail list logo
