On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >As long as you keep up this vague talk about performance during
>> >migration, without even
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote:
>
>
> On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >As long as you keep up this vague talk about performance during
> >migration, without even bothering with any measurements, this patchset
> >will keep going nowhere.
> >
>
> I
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 09:04:51AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote:
>> >>
>>
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/12/2015 23:23, David Matlack wrote:
>> I'm wondering if this comment in mmu.c:init_kvm_nested_mmu is correct (at
>> least in the context of Nested EPT):
>>
>> 4055 /*
>> 4056 * Note that
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 09:04:51AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:42:14AM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/25/2015 8:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >As long as you keep
On 12/28/2015 11:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Joao Martins
> wrote:
>> Right now there is only a pvclock_pvti_cpu0_va() which is defined on
>> kvmclock since:
>>
>> commit dac16fba6fc5
>> ("x86/vdso: Get pvclock data from the vvar
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 12/28/2015 11:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Joao Martins
>> wrote:
>>> Right now there is only a pvclock_pvti_cpu0_va() which is defined on
>>>