Hi,
I think that would work well for spice. Spice uses shared memory from the
pci device for both the framebuffer and surfaces/commands, but this is
Is that the only DMA do you do? That's good for this model.
Yes. Spice does both reads and writes though, so a way to tag pages as
dirty
On 04/26/2011 04:14 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
I think that would work well for spice. Spice uses shared memory from
the
pci device for both the framebuffer and surfaces/commands, but this is
Is that the only DMA do you do? That's good for this model.
Yes. Spice does both reads and
On 03/02/11 14:49, Michael Roth wrote:
On 03/02/2011 07:18 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
I think we need two types for sure, even for the video case, we will
still need a control channel as well. However, I don't think it is
desirable to split things up more than we have to, so if we can keep it
On 02/28/11 18:44, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Separating host-side virtagent and other tasks from core QEMU
=
To improve auditing of the core QEMU code, it would
On 03/01/11 13:07, Dor Laor wrote:
On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm very nervous about having a large number of daemons necessary to run
QEMU. I think a reasonable approach would be a single front-end daemond.
s/daemon/son processes/
Qemu is the one that should spawn them
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com
Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent
from the management. This way running qemu stays the same and qemu just
need to add the
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Spice is the logical place to start, no? It's the largest single
dependency we have and it does some scary things with qemu_mutex. I
would use spice as a way to prove the concept.
I agree it is desirable to
On 03/02/2011 12:28 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Spice is the logical place to start, no? It's the largest single
dependency we have and it does some scary things with qemu_mutex. I
would use spice as a way to prove
On 03/02/11 11:42, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/02/2011 12:28 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
I agree it is desirable to the this for spice but it is allot more
complex than virtagent isolation. Spice is performance sensitive and
contains much more state. It needs to
On 03/02/2011 12:25 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laordl...@redhat.com
Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent
from the management. This way running qemu
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com
Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent
from the management.
On 03/02/11 11:56, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/02/2011 12:25 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
Using shared memory this way should allow us to implement the video
clients without performance loss, in fact it should be beneficial since
it would allow them to run fully
On 03/02/11 11:58, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
I had a few thoughts about this already, which I think will work for
both spice and vnc. What we could do is to expose the video memory via
shared memory. That way a spice or vnc daemon could get
On 03/02/2011 12:58 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laordl...@redhat.com
Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:04:58PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/02/2011 12:58 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laordl...@redhat.com
On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 02/28/11 18:44, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensenjes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Separating host-side virtagent and other tasks from core QEMU
=
To improve
On 03/02/11 14:13, Michael Roth wrote:
On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
It is absolutely vital for me that we do not make things much more
complicated for users with this move. I don't want to get into a
situation where we start forcing external packages or daemons in order
to run
On 03/02/2011 07:18 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 03/02/11 14:13, Michael Roth wrote:
On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
It is absolutely vital for me that we do not make things much more
complicated for users with this move. I don't want to get into a
situation where we start forcing
On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com
mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core
features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com
mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com
mailto:dl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com
mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com
On 03/01/2011 09:25 AM, Dor Laor wrote:
On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com
mailto:dl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com
Hi,
On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core
features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks etc.
I wrote up a summary of my thoughts on this to try to cover the various
issues. Feedback welcome and hopefully we can continue the discussion on
a future
On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, Jes Sorensen jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core
features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks etc.
I wrote up a summary of my thoughts on this to try to cover the various
24 matches
Mail list logo
