On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 12:26:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 04:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe this is true for the in-kernel model, but I don't see the issue
> >> (anymore) for the way user space works.
> >>
> >With patch below I can boot Windows7.
> >
> >diff --git a/
On 02/03/2011 04:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> Maybe this is true for the in-kernel model, but I don't see the issue
> (anymore) for the way user space works.
>
With patch below I can boot Windows7.
diff --git a/hw/apic.c b/hw/apic.c
index 146deca..fdcac88 100644
--- a/hw/apic.c
+++ b/hw/apic
On 2011-02-03 15:15, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-02-03 11:04, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:32:25AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-03 11:04, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:32:25AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>
> > If there is no prob
On 2011-02-03 11:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 11:32 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
> If there is no problem in the logic of this commit (and I do not see
> one yet) then we somewhere miss kic
On 2011-02-03 11:04, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:32:25AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
> If there is no problem in the logic of this commit (and I do not see
> one yet) then w
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:32:25AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> >>> 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, t
On 02/03/2011 11:32 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> 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
>>> ha
On 2011-02-03 09:18, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I'm not yet confident about
On 2011-02-03 08:42, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> 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 mis
On 02/02/2011 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
> 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?
I'm not yet confident about the logic of the kernel patch: mov to cr8 is
serial
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
>
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 +
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
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 wro
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 w
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 02/02/2
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
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 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
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. Wit
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
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 Wind
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 (S
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 s
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
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, g
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
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 s
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 13:35, 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
>>>
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
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 KVM mode when
>> using 2 or more VCPUs and the user spac
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 KVM mode when
> using 2 or more VCPUs and the user space irqchip. This applies to both
> upstream KVM
34 matches
Mail list logo
