Title: ---[CLIENTE DE BANAMEX]---
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Does this make Xen obsolete? I mean... we have xen patches in suse
> kernels, should we keep updating them, or just drop them in favour of
> KVM?
> Pavel
Xen is duplicating basic OS components like the
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora 6 install as a guest on a host running
2.6.20-rc4 with the kvm-10 userspace release. The CPU is a Xeon 5160
and I have 6 GB of RAM. The guest is given 512 MB of memory. I left
the guest idle overnight, and the makewhatis cron job seems to have
triggered this:
Una
Gildas wrote:
>> I fixed a couple of bugs which could well be the root cause of these
>> reports. Please retest with kvm trunk (or kvm-4270 from
>> http://people.qumranet.com/avi if you don't wish to use subversion).
>
> The server is non responsive as far as I can tell
>
Our adsl connection had
> I fixed a couple of bugs which could well be the root cause of these
> reports. Please retest with kvm trunk (or kvm-4270 from
> http://people.qumranet.com/avi if you don't wish to use subversion).
The server is non responsive as far as I can tell
Cheers
Gildas
---
( अमेय पाळंदे ) Ameya Palande wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried installing following OSs using kvm release 9 and 10.
> Note : I used -no-acpi -m 256 for qemu
>
> 1. opensuse 10.2
> kvm10 - for starting installation one has to press shift key to avoid
> graphical
> boot screen. Afterwards Graph
( अमेय पाळंदे ) Ameya Palande wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried installing following OSs using kvm release 9 and 10.
> Note : I used -no-acpi -m 256 for qemu
>
> 1. opensuse 10.2
> kvm10 - for starting installation one has to press shift key to avoid
> graphical
> boot screen. Afterwards Graph
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like a lot of complexity for very little gain. I'm not sure
> what the vmwrite cost is, cut it can't be that high compared to
> vmexit.
while i disagree with characterising one extra parameter passed down
plus one extra branch as 'a lot of comp
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> but AFAICS rmap_write_protect() is only ever called if we write a new
>>> cr3 - hence a TLB flush will happen anyway, because we do a
>>> vmcs_writel(GUEST_CR3, new_cr3). Am i missing something?
>>>
>> No, rmap_write_p
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >but AFAICS rmap_write_protect() is only ever called if we write a new
> >cr3 - hence a TLB flush will happen anyway, because we do a
> >vmcs_writel(GUEST_CR3, new_cr3). Am i missing something?
>
> No, rmap_write_protect() is called whenever we shadow
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> the cache is zapped upon pagefaults anyway, so unpinning ought to be
>>> possible. Which one would you prefer?
>>>
>> It's zapped by the equivalent of mmu_free_roots(), right? That's
>> effectively unpinning it (by ze
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the cache is zapped upon pagefaults anyway, so unpinning ought to be
> > possible. Which one would you prefer?
>
> It's zapped by the equivalent of mmu_free_roots(), right? That's
> effectively unpinning it (by zeroing ->root_count).
no, right now
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> This is a little too good to be true. Were both runs with the same
>> KVM_NUM_MMU_PAGES?
>>
>
> yes, both had the same elevated KVM_NUM_MMU_PAGES of 2048. The 'trunk'
> run should have been labeled as: 'cr3 tree with paravirt turned off'.
> That's not completely '
13 matches
Mail list logo
