Rather than #ifdef users of smp_call_function_mask(), define it as an
empty macro to avoid build errors. The function explicitly prohibits
callers from specifying the current cpu, so nothing needs to be done.
This unbreaks uniprocessor KVM builds.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avi Kivity wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
I ran
user/kvmctl user/test/bootstrap user/test/smp.flat
with the busy loop hacked into bootstrap, but I got no latency spots
this time. And what should I look for in the output of kvm_stat?
The first numeric column is the total number of exits;
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
From ac4dd1782b9f0f51e0c366a1b8db4515d6828df8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
From: Sheng Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:34:42 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Enable memory mapped TPR shadow(FlexPriority)
This patch based on CR8/TPR patch before, and
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Another comment: I forgot if I answer the question on why eip should
move
backward. I did it because some instruction like mov will move eip
to
skip some dst/src operand when executing, so eip should be kept for
consistency.
I think you're talking
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Another comment: I forgot if I answer the question on why eip should
move
backward. I did it because some instruction like mov will move eip
to
skip some dst/src operand when executing, so eip should
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Another comment: I forgot if I answer the question on why eip
should
move
backward. I did it because some instruction like mov will move
eip
to
skip some dst/src operand when executing, so eip should be
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Another thing, if we can use physical address as supplement of cr2 in
emulate_instrcutions, that will be better. Any suggestion?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
I'd like to see cr2 completely removed from x86_emulate.c.
Do you mean complete decode
Carsten Otte wrote:
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
What is the plan here Xiantao? If I want to begin PPC integration,
should I submit some patches too (hopefully in areas where we will
not conflict)? Or should I just review your submissions and hold off
on PPC code changes until the dust settles?
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 10:55 +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
From ac4dd1782b9f0f51e0c366a1b8db4515d6828df8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sheng Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:34:42 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Enable memory mapped TPR shadow(FlexPriority)
This patch based on CR8/TPR
Avi Kivity wrote:
Yang, Sheng wrote:
Another thing, if we can use physical address as supplement of cr2
in
emulate_instrcutions, that will be better. Any suggestion?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
I'd like to see cr2 completely removed from x86_emulate.c.
Do you mean
Yang, Sheng wrote:
I agreed, and interested in it. But I don't know if I have enough time
to do this. I can take this, but you may wait a little long time. :)
Good, thanks.
BTW: I've checked the instructions which need decode operand. Your are
right, and to be exactly, that's two kind
On Monday 15 October 2007 01:54:03 Jan Frey wrote:
Hi,
I intended to use qemu-system-x86_64 with kvm for full virtualization.
My host is
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 127
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64
Just wanted to let people know, I wrote a stupid little tool that
modifies an ISO image to disable GFXBOOT. This lets you install OSes
that use GFXBOOT under KVM on Intel (Ubuntu, OpenSuSE).
It's a horrible, horrible hack. But it works :-)
http://hg.codemonkey.ws/gfxboot-disable
Regards,
[PATCH] Make kvm Sleep if eflag is unset.
The main loop checks whether a sleep is needed (kvm_main_loop_wait).
If there is a need to sleep it polls 10msec for signals and
select input from the devices.
Otherwise it enters guest mode.
In case halt is on and there is pending irq we should also
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
I ran
user/kvmctl user/test/bootstrap user/test/smp.flat
with the busy loop hacked into bootstrap, but I got no latency spots
this time. And what should I look
On Wednesday 24 October 2007, Amit Shah wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2007 01:54:03 Jan Frey wrote:
Hi,
I intended to use qemu-system-x86_64 with kvm for full virtualization.
My host is
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
I'm building some kvm-test harnesses and noticed an issue when
installing Windows on my Core 2 Duo laptop. After the first reboot
during the installation, after the prompt to press any key to boot from
CD, I just get a black screen. This is not influenced by -no-kvm-irqchip.
Is this a known
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm building some kvm-test harnesses and noticed an issue when
installing Windows on my Core 2 Duo laptop. After the first reboot
during the installation, after the prompt to press any key to boot from
CD, I just get a black screen. This is not influenced by
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm building some kvm-test harnesses and noticed an issue when
installing Windows on my Core 2 Duo laptop. After the first reboot
during the installation, after the prompt to press any key to boot
from CD, I just get a black screen. This is not
On Wed, 2007-24-10 at 10:53 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Just wanted to let people know, I wrote a stupid little tool that
modifies an ISO image to disable GFXBOOT. This lets you install OSes
that use GFXBOOT under KVM on Intel (Ubuntu, OpenSuSE).
It's a horrible, horrible hack. But it
I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to get a vm running with 4 cpus. It is
failing with a soft lockup:
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#3!
[c044a05f] softlockup_tick+0x98/0xa6
[c042ccd4] update_process_times+0x39/0x5c
[c04176ec] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x5c/0x64
[c04049bf]
david ahern a écrit :
I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to get a vm running with 4 cpus. It is
failing with a soft lockup:
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#3!
[c044a05f] softlockup_tick+0x98/0xa6
[c042ccd4] update_process_times+0x39/0x5c
[c04176ec] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x5c/0x64
This may be helpful to everyone if Hollis's explanation of container_of
didn't help:
Lookup up container_of or look at the secion named Lists
at this link:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-2.html
It also contains the macro used in the kernel.
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:18 -0500, Hollis
I saw that in the latest git tree, but RHEL5 kernel does not have that
function. I guess I'll have to evaluate my options -- upgrading kernels, or
backporting code.
thanks,
david
Laurent Vivier wrote:
david ahern a écrit :
I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to get a vm running with 4
24 matches
Mail list logo
