Eduardo, Jan
I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
(CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Eduardo, Jan
I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
I don't think there's a final agreement, but I
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Eduardo, Jan
I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
Have you made a final agreement of the issue
'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs. 'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
I don't think
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200,
On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:21:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:39:45PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:21:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov
On 05/07/2012 08:21 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
Sorry for the delay, the easy answers first:
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of -cpu host to
be able to continue working on it.
The purpose of -cpu host is to let
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200,
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200,
On 05/09/2012 11:38 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapovg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov
On 09.05.2012, at 21:38, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of -cpu host to
be able to continue working on it. I believe
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of -cpu host to
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of -cpu host to
be able to continue working on it. I believe the code will need to be
fixed on either case, but first we need to figure out what are the
expectations/requirements, to
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of -cpu host to
be able to continue working on it. I believe the code will need to be
fixed on either case, but first we need to
On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Trying to summarize the points above:
Groups (A) and (B) are:
A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
by
(CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
expected meaning of -cpu host)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, that was how I
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:23:50AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03,
On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Trying to summarize the points above:
Groups (A) and (B) are:
A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
by userspace blindly, without requiring any additional userspace
code to work.
B) a feature that KVM
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Trying to summarize the points above:
Groups (A) and (B) are:
A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
by userspace blindly, without requiring
On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER unnecessary.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:17:52PM +,
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
[...]
This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both the
hardware and kvm. Userspace can use the information
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
[...]
This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both
the hardware and kvm. Userspace can use
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your
target I
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your
target I think.
One
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable
cpuid feature for older machine types by
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me a
specific solution for the tsc
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common approach for this common
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me a
specific
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 09.03.2012 21:52, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
Andreas, do you expect CPU devices to be ready for qemu 1.1? We
would need them to pass a feature exclusion mask from
machine.compat_props to the (x86) CPU init code.
I was sure hoping to!
Marcelo and
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature
for older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for
this common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc
deadline timer case?
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature for
older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for this
common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc deadline
timer case?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
My
45 matches
Mail list logo
