Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:
> I meet the error below when I compile KVM module against
> 30dac03825e830641054a829fe99ff6d1f2ebe0d. The kernel is 2.6.22-rc4.
> /workspace/ia32e/nightly/kvm-master-2.6.22-rc4-20070708190117/kvm-usersp
> ace/BUILD/kernel/kvm_main.c: In function 'kvm_cpu_hotplug':
> /workspace
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# modprobe kvm-amd
>> int3: [1] PREEMPT SMP
>> CPU 1
>> Modules linked in: kvm_amd snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss
>> snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss
>> nls_iso8859_1 ntfs nls_base usb_storag
Jeremy Fitzhardinge napsal(a):
> Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# modprobe kvm-amd
>> int3: [1] PREEMPT SMP
>> CPU 1
>> Modules linked in: kvm_amd snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss
>> snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss
>> nls_iso8859_1 ntfs nls_base usb_st
> Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
> generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
> __smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function_single()?
The low level function che
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 20:58 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The only fly in the ointment is that it crashes quite soon. Haven't
> figured
> out why yet, but comments on the general direction would be welcome.
Attached patch seems help in my test. prepare_task_switch is called with
irq disabled.
> -st
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
>>
>
> Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
>
>
>> generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
>> __smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function
Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 20:58 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> The only fly in the ointment is that it crashes quite soon. Haven't
>> figured
>> out why yet, but comments on the general direction would be welcome.
>>
> Attached patch seems help in my test. prepare_task_switc
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Shaohua Li wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 20:58 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> The only fly in the ointment is that it crashes quite soon. Haven't
>>> figured
>>> out why yet, but comments on the general direction would be welcome.
>>>
>> Attached patch seems help in m
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
>>
>>
>>> generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
>>> __smp_call_function_single() and on
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# modprobe kvm-amd
>>> int3: [1] PREEMPT SMP
>>> CPU 1
>>> Modules linked in: kvm_amd snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss
>>> snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss
>>
>
> Please post your .config.
>
Here is my config:
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21.5
# Thu Jun 21 21:34:48 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_64BIT=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL=y
CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_
Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Please post your .config.
>>
>
> Here is my config:
>
[config config config]
> #
> # Virtualization
> #
> CONFIG_KVM=y
> CONFIG_KVM_INTEL=m
> CONFIG_KVM_AMD=m
Ah, kvm is built in but the arch modules aren't.
Anybody k
Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge napsal(a):
>
>> Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# modprobe kvm-amd
>>> int3: [1] PREEMPT SMP
>>> CPU 1
>>> Modules linked in: kvm_amd snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss
>>> snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_os
Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Avi:
> To make lapic code into mainline earlier, I am thinking what
> should the user space code look like. If we wait till lapic branch has
> all same functionality as mainline have today i.e. live migration, all
> guests etc, we may have very long way to go given that
Bugs item #1750684, was opened at 2007-07-09 19:59
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=893831&aid=1750684&group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
This looks like a typo. I think the intention of the if is to normalize
i[3456]86 to i386 since that's the target name for QEMU.
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/configure b/configure
index d9292fe..e4d1ec6 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ f
Hi,
ISTR participating in a similar discussion some time back, but ...
anyway, I don't like the change in semantics of smp_call_function()
being proposed here *at* *all* ...
On 7/9/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This defines on_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 11:14 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > I've noticed that some of my tests run *MUCH* slower in kvm-28 than in
> > 27. I'm sure that wall time is pretty wonky in the guests, but it is
> > much slower in real-world time as well.
> >
> > Here's a little test to
Bugs item #1750844, was opened at 2007-07-09 17:04
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=893831&aid=1750844&group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Avi:
>> To make lapic code into mainline earlier, I am thinking what
>> should the user space code look like. If we wait till lapic branch
>> has all same functionality as mainline have today i.e. live
>> migration, all guests etc, we may have very lo
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I think a "struct preempt_ops *" and a "void *preempt_ops_data" inside
> > every task struct is a better idea. Call the config option
> > PREEMPT_SCHED_HOOKS and now there's nothing kvm-specific about it...
> >
>
>
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 11:14 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed that some of my tests run *MUCH* slower in kvm-28 than in
>>> 27. I'm sure that wall time is pretty wonky in the guests, but it is
>>> much slower in real-world time as wel
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>> I think a "struct preempt_ops *" and a "void *preempt_ops_data" inside
>>> every task struct is a better idea. Call the config option
>>> PREEMPT_SCHED_HOOKS and now there's nothing
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>> to just fix smp_call_function() directly
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix" here, but if you're proposing
> that we change smp_call_func
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:46:14 +0200
Magicboiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> with VNC option, we had better luck: we got an Oops!!:
>
> Jun 14 17:37:35 linux kernel: [ 575.212000] BUG: unable to handle
> kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0024
[...]
> Jun 14 17:37:35 linux kerne
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 08:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > No; this is a "I'm doing something magic and need to know before someone
> > else takes the CPU". Almost by definition, you cannot have two of them
> > at the same time. Let someone else try that if and when...
>
> W
26 matches
Mail list logo
