Am 12.09.18 um 19:42 schrieb Tony Krowiak:
> On 08/23/2018 04:24 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
should
not be an issue.
>>> Might not be a problem
Am 12.09.18 um 19:42 schrieb Tony Krowiak:
> On 08/23/2018 04:24 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
should
not be an issue.
>>> Might not be a problem
On 08/23/2018 04:24 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
should
not be an issue.
Might not be a problem now, but could be later. As I said in a different
reply, the CPU
On 08/23/2018 04:24 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
should
not be an issue.
Might not be a problem now, but could be later. As I said in a different
reply, the CPU
On 08/23/2018 07:40 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 19:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12,
On 08/23/2018 07:40 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 19:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12,
On 23.08.2018 19:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 19:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this
On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
has
On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
has
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> I'm confused, which 128 bit?
>
>
> Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
> has 128
On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> I'm confused, which 128 bit?
>
>
> Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
> has 128
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
has 128 bytes
And looking at arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h, there is a lot of information
On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[..]
I'm confused, which 128 bit?
Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci block
has 128 bytes
And looking at arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h, there is a lot of information
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 13:10, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM,
On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 13:10, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM,
On 23.08.2018 13:10, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 13:10, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018
On 23/08/2018 12:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>
On 23.08.2018 12:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two
On 08/23/2018 09:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two
On 23/08/2018 09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I really wonder if we should also export the APXA facility.
Given this comment is made within the context of the
FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL I might point out that APXA is not
indicated by a facilities bit. It is indicated by a bit in
the QCI control
On 23/08/2018 09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I really wonder if we should also export the APXA facility.
Given this comment is made within the context of the
FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL I might point out that APXA is not
indicated by a facilities bit. It is indicated by a bit in
the QCI control
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
> > should
> > not be an issue.
>
> Might not be a problem now, but could be later. As I said in a different
> reply, the CPU model in QEMU does not care
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:48:48 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
> > should
> > not be an issue.
>
> Might not be a problem now, but could be later. As I said in a different
> reply, the CPU model in QEMU does not care
>>>
>> I really wonder if we should also export the APXA facility.
>
> Given this comment is made within the context of the
> FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL I might point out that APXA is not
> indicated by a facilities bit. It is indicated by a bit in
> the QCI control block returned from the PQAP(QCI)
>>>
>> I really wonder if we should also export the APXA facility.
>
> Given this comment is made within the context of the
> FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL I might point out that APXA is not
> indicated by a facilities bit. It is indicated by a bit in
> the QCI control block returned from the PQAP(QCI)
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to
On 22.08.2018 22:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to
On 22.08.2018 23:05, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 12:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
> about APXA.
>
> Would it be a solution?
Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
On 22.08.2018 23:05, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 12:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
> about APXA.
>
> Would it be a solution?
Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
On 08/22/2018 12:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
about APXA.
Would it be a solution?
Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM
On 08/22/2018 12:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
about APXA.
Would it be a solution?
Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM
On 08/22/2018 07:19 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP
On 08/22/2018 07:19 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The
On 08/22/2018 07:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The
>>>
>>> In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
>>> about APXA.
>>>
>>> Would it be a solution?
>>
>> Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
>> environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM and
>> QEMU. Only
>>>
>>> In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having idea
>>> about APXA.
>>>
>>> Would it be a solution?
>>
>> Any feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
>> environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM and
>> QEMU. Only
On 22/08/2018 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 16:33, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for
On 22/08/2018 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.08.2018 16:33, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for
On 22.08.2018 16:33, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> From: Tony Krowiak
>>>
>>> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
>>> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>>>
>>> CPU model
On 22.08.2018 16:33, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> From: Tony Krowiak
>>>
>>> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
>>> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>>>
>>> CPU model
On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP
On 22/08/2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> From: Tony Krowiak
>>
>> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
>> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>>
>> CPU model feature:
>>
>> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature
On 22.08.2018 13:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> From: Tony Krowiak
>>
>> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
>> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>>
>> CPU model feature:
>>
>> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are available on the
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are available on the
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are available on the
On 13.08.2018 23:48, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are available on the
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:18 -0400
Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:18 -0400
Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak
>
> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>
> CPU model feature:
>
> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
> AP instructions are
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP instructions are available on the guest. This
feature will be enabled by the kernel only if
From: Tony Krowiak
Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
CPU model feature:
The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
AP instructions are available on the guest. This
feature will be enabled by the kernel only if
60 matches
Mail list logo
