Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-16 Thread Alexander Graf
On 06.08.2010, at 18:28, Kumar Gala wrote: On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: [without] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello /dev/null; done real0m14.659s user0m8.967s sys 0m5.688s [with] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-06 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: [without] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello /dev/null; done real0m14.659s user0m8.967s sys 0m5.688s [with] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello /dev/null; done

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-05 Thread Avi Kivity
On 08/03/2010 07:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:21:37 +0200 Alexander Grafag...@suse.de wrote: On 01.08.2010, at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote: Looks reasonable. Since it's fair to say I understand nothing about powerpc, I'd like someone who does to review it and ack, please,

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-05 Thread Alexander Graf
On 05.08.2010, at 09:57, Avi Kivity wrote: On 08/03/2010 07:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:21:37 +0200 Alexander Grafag...@suse.de wrote: On 01.08.2010, at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote: Looks reasonable. Since it's fair to say I understand nothing about powerpc, I'd like

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-05 Thread Avi Kivity
On 08/05/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: Shall I take this as an ACK? Hollis wanted to take a look at it too. But given the fact that I have another ~10 patches lying here I'd appreciate if things could get committed. If changes are so dramatic that they'd render things incompatible,

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-05 Thread Avi Kivity
On 07/29/2010 03:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the emulation overhead of privileged instructions

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-03 Thread Scott Wood
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:21:37 +0200 Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote: On 01.08.2010, at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote: Looks reasonable. Since it's fair to say I understand nothing about powerpc, I'd like someone who does to review it and ack, please, with an emphasis on the interfaces.

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-01 Thread Avi Kivity
On 07/29/2010 03:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the emulation overhead of privileged instructions

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-08-01 Thread Alexander Graf
On 01.08.2010, at 16:02, Avi Kivity wrote: On 07/29/2010 03:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the

[PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework v3

2010-07-29 Thread Alexander Graf
On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the emulation overhead of privileged instructions is killing performance. This patchset tackles

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework

2010-07-09 Thread Alexander Graf
On 09.07.2010, at 06:57, MJ embd wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote: On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework

2010-07-08 Thread MJ embd
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote: On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the emulation overhead of

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework

2010-07-02 Thread Segher Boessenkool
[without] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello / dev/null; done real0m14.659s user0m8.967s sys 0m5.688s [with] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello / dev/null; done real0m7.557s user0m4.121s sys 0m3.426s So

Re: [PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework

2010-07-02 Thread Alexander Graf
On 02.07.2010, at 18:22, Segher Boessenkool wrote: [without] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello /dev/null; done real0m14.659s user0m8.967s sys 0m5.688s [with] debian-powerpc:~# time for i in {1..1000}; do /bin/echo hello /dev/null; done

[PATCH 00/27] KVM PPC PV framework

2010-07-01 Thread Alexander Graf
On PPC we run PR=0 (kernel mode) code in PR=1 (user mode) and don't use the hypervisor extensions. While that is all great to show that virtualization is possible, there are quite some cases where the emulation overhead of privileged instructions is killing performance. This patchset tackles