On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:20:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> But what guarantee does userspace require, from GET_DIRTY_LOG, while vcpus
>>> are
>>> executing?
>>
>> Aha. Single calling GET_DIRTY_LOG is useless since new dirty page
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:20:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > But what guarantee does userspace require, from GET_DIRTY_LOG, while vcpus
> > are
> > executing?
>
> Aha. Single calling GET_DIRTY_LOG is useless since new dirty page can be
> generated
> when GET_DIRTY_LOG is being returned.
On Nov 20, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt
On Nov 20, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:20:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
But what guarantee does userspace require, from GET_DIRTY_LOG, while vcpus
are
executing?
Aha. Single calling GET_DIRTY_LOG is useless since new dirty page can be
generated
when GET_DIRTY_LOG is being returned. If user
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:20:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
But what guarantee does userspace require, from GET_DIRTY_LOG, while vcpus
are
executing?
Aha. Single calling GET_DIRTY_LOG is useless since new dirty
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:29:20PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> A call to GET_DIRTY_LOG guarantees to return correct information about
> dirty pages before invocation of the previous GET_DIRTY_LOG call.
> Can you explain why it is OK to relax this rule?
That is, this might be OK, but better
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
> >>
> >> We do this is for
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:29:20PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
A call to GET_DIRTY_LOG guarantees to return correct information about
dirty pages before invocation of the previous GET_DIRTY_LOG call.
Can you explain why it is OK to relax this rule?
That is, this might be OK, but better
[ Post again after adjusting the format since the mail list rejected to deliver
my previous one. ]
On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
> >>
> >> We do this is for
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for
[ Post again after adjusting the format since the mail list rejected to deliver
my previous one. ]
On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue,
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
>>
>> We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
>> on the dirty bitmap, we
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
>
> We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
> on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in rmap
On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should
On 07/30/2013 09:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/07/2013 15:02, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
>>
>> We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
>> on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the
On 07/30/2013 09:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/07/2013 15:02, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable
Il 30/07/2013 15:02, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
>
> We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
> on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in rmap
> before the
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in rmap
before the dirty bitmap is visible. Otherwise, we cleared the dirty
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in rmap
before the dirty bitmap is visible. Otherwise, we cleared the dirty
Il 30/07/2013 15:02, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible
We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte based
on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in rmap
before the dirty
24 matches
Mail list logo
