On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:22:42PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 14:19 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 15:37 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Gleb, any chance you can put this (and the next one) into a tree to
lock in the numbers ?
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:19:58PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 15:37 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Gleb, any chance you can put this (and the next one) into a tree to
lock in the numbers ?
Applied it. Sorry for slow response, was on vocation and still go
On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 09:40 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Thanks. Since it's not in a topic branch that I can pull, I'm going to
just cherry-pick them. However, they are in your queue branch, not
next branch. Should I still assume this is a stable branch and that
the numbers aren't going to
On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 09:41 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Oh and Alexey mentions that there are two capabilities and you only
applied one :-)
Another one is:
[PATCH v8] KVM: PPC: reserve a capability and ioctl numbers for
realmode VFIO
?
Yes, thanks !
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org wrote:
xics_init() assumes kvm-nrcpus is already setup. kvm-nrcpus is setup
in kvm_cpu_init()
Unfortunately xics_init() and kvm_cpu_init() both use base_init(). So
depending on the order randomly determined by the compiler,
Currently we are not saving and restoring the SIAR and SDAR registers in
the PMU (performance monitor unit) on guest entry and exit. The result
is that performance monitoring tools in the guest could get false
information about where a program was executing and what data it was
accessing at the
