Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Eduardo, Jan
>>
>> I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
>> Have you made a final agreement of the issue
>> 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs. 'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
>
> I don't
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Eduardo, Jan
>
> I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
> Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
> 'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
I don't think there's a final agreement, b
Eduardo, Jan
I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> (CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
> expe
(CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
expected meaning of "-cpu host")
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> However, that was how I i
On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> Trying to summarize the points above:
>>>
>>> Groups (A) and (B) are:
>>>
>>> A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Trying to summarize the points above:
> >
> > Groups (A) and (B) are:
> >
> > A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
> >by userspace blindly, without
On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Trying to summarize the points above:
>
> Groups (A) and (B) are:
>
> A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
>by userspace blindly, without requiring any additional userspace
>code to work.
> B) a feature that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:23:50AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012
On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Jan/Avi: ping?
>
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> Jan/Avi: ping?
> >>>
> >>> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified s
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> Jan/Avi: ping?
>>>
>>> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
>>> the right way on Qemu and KVM.
>>>
>>> My pr
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Jan/Avi: ping?
> >
> > I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
> > the right way on Qemu and KVM.
> >
> > My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the d
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Jan/Avi: ping?
>
> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
> the right way on Qemu and KVM.
>
> My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
> GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER u
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER unnecessary.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:17:52PM +, Li
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>>
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> [1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
>>>
>>> "KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
>>> [...]
>>> This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both
>>> the hardware and kvm
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > [1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
> >
> > "KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
> > [...]
> > This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both the
> > hardware and kvm. Userspace can use the i
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>>
As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfie
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> >
> >> As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
> >> obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your
> >> target I think
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>
>> As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
>> obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your
>> target I think.
>
> One question.
>
> Why is TSC_DEADLINE not exposed in the cpuid a
On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just obey qemu
general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your target I think.
One question.
Why is TSC_DEADLINE not exposed in the cpuid allowed feature
bits in do_cpuid_ent() i
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> >>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > Any comments? I feel some c
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan,
>>
>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable
>> cpuid f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 09.03.2012 21:52, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> Andreas, do you expect CPU devices to be ready for qemu 1.1? We
> would need them to pass a feature exclusion mask from
> machine.compat_props to the (x86) CPU init code.
I was sure hoping to!
Marcelo and
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
> feature for older machine type
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>>> common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common app
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>>> common approach for this common issue,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan,
>>
>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>> common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me a
>> specific solution for
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature
> for older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for
> this common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc
> deadline timer
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature for
older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for this
common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc deadline
timer case?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> My po
>
> My point is that
>
> qemu-version-A [-cpu whatever]
>
> should provide the same VM as
>
> qemu-version-B -machine pc-A [-cpu whatever]
>
> specifically if you leave out the cpu specification.
>
> So the compat machine could establish a feature mask (e.g. append some
> "-tsc_deadline"
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-07 19:23, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature
> on machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we introduced kvmclock
> only to pc-0.14 onward. The
On 2012-02-27 17:05, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-07 19:23, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature
>> on machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we intro
On 2012-01-07 19:23, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature on
machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we introduced kvmclock only to
pc-0.14 onward. The reason is that guest OSe
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature on
>>> machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we introduced kvmclock only to
>>> pc-0.14 onward. The reason is that guest OSes so far running on
>>> qemu-1.0 or older witho
On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature on
>> machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we introduced kvmclock only to
>> pc-0.14 onward. The reason is that guest OSes so far running on
>> qemu-1.0 or older without deadline timer suppor
> This requires some logic change and then rewording:
>
> - enable TSC deadline timer support by default if in-kernel irqchip is
> used
> - disable it on user request via a cpu feature flag
Yes, the logic has been implemented by the former patch as:
+if (env->tsc_deadline_timer_enabled) {
On 2011-12-28 19:55, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>From 3a78adf8006ec6189bfe2f55f7ae213e75bf3815 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Liu Jinsong
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:28:12 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Expose tsc deadline timer cpuid to guest
>
> Depend on several factors:
> 1. Considering live migrat
>From 3a78adf8006ec6189bfe2f55f7ae213e75bf3815 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Liu Jinsong
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:28:12 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Expose tsc deadline timer cpuid to guest
Depend on several factors:
1. Considering live migration, user enable/disable tsc deadline timer;
2. If gue
40 matches
Mail list logo
