On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:40:55PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Is this patch helps?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
index 3cece05..62b1dde 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
@@ -549,6 +549,9 @@ static void
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:00:37PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:40:55PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Is this patch helps?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
index 3cece05..62b1dde 100644
---
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:22:53PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:00:37PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:40:55PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Is this patch helps?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be
removed. For some cases it is still beneficial, see example case on
commit e48258009d941, which is not handled by kick coalescing of
kvm_vcpu_kick.
On the other hand, I think it
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be
removed. For some cases it is still beneficial, see example case on
commit e48258009d941, which is not handled by kick
On 02/08/2011 04:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be
removed. For some cases it is still beneficial, see example case on
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:57:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/08/2011 04:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be
removed.
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Thanks for testing. Can you test this one too please:
i8259.c | 25 ++---
x86.c |4
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Yes, it works, too. (Tested against v2.6.37.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 02/07/2011 08:00 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi kvm-ers,
When I boot the HURD with
kvm -m 768 -net nic,model=ne2k_pci -net user hurd-installed.qemu
it hangs and eventually produces two messages:
hd0: unexpected_intr: status=0x58 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest
}
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 02:39:01PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/07/2011 08:00 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi kvm-ers,
When I boot the HURD with
kvm -m 768 -net nic,model=ne2k_pci -net user hurd-installed.qemu
it hangs and eventually produces two messages:
hd0:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 02:45:13PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 02:39:01PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/07/2011 08:00 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi kvm-ers,
When I boot the HURD with
kvm -m 768 -net nic,model=ne2k_pci -net user hurd-installed.qemu
it
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Is this patch helps?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
index 3cece05..62b1dde 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
@@ -549,6 +549,9 @@ static void pic_irq_request(struct kvm *kvm, int level)
struct kvm_pic *s =
08.02.2011 04:40, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Is this patch helps?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
index 3cece05..62b1dde 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
@@ -549,6 +549,9 @@ static void pic_irq_request(struct kvm *kvm,
Hi kvm-ers,
When I boot the HURD with
kvm -m 768 -net nic,model=ne2k_pci -net user hurd-installed.qemu
it hangs and eventually produces two messages:
hd0: unexpected_intr: status=0x58 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest
}
hd0: irq timeout: status=0x58 { DriveReady
14 matches
Mail list logo
