On 30/08/20 15:34, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Ciao Paolo,
>
> just a ping on this one, it would seem that qemu_clock_get_ns needs to be
> called before
> any accelerator is initialized, before ticks are enabled, as part of qcow2
> initialization.
>
> I could add a check specifically for this and
Ciao Paolo,
just a ping on this one, it would seem that qemu_clock_get_ns needs to be
called before
any accelerator is initialized, before ticks are enabled, as part of qcow2
initialization.
I could add a check specifically for this and a comment in the
cpus_get_virtual_clock(), but do you
Hi Paolo and all,
back in RFC v3 I introduced cpus_get_virtual_clock in this patch.
I observed an issue when adding the get_virtual_clock to the CpusAccel
interface, ie
it seems that qemu_clock_get_ns() is called in some io-tests before the
accelerator is initialized,
which seems to collide
On 8/11/20 10:59 AM, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:05:27AM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> The new interface starts unused, will start being used by the
>> next patches.
>>
>> It provides methods for each accelerator to start a vcpu, kick a vcpu,
>> synchronize state, get
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:05:27AM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> The new interface starts unused, will start being used by the
> next patches.
>
> It provides methods for each accelerator to start a vcpu, kick a vcpu,
> synchronize state, get cpu virtual clock and elapsed ticks.
>
>
On 8/5/20 10:47 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/08/20 10:40, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> #ifdef _WIN32
>>> -/* Eat dummy APC queued by qemu_cpu_kick_thread. */
>>> +/* Eat dummy APC queued by qemu_cpu_kick_thread. */
>>> +/* NB!!! Should not this be if (hax_enabled)? Is this wrong
On 05/08/20 10:40, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> #ifdef _WIN32
>> -/* Eat dummy APC queued by qemu_cpu_kick_thread. */
>> +/* Eat dummy APC queued by qemu_cpu_kick_thread. */
>> +/* NB!!! Should not this be if (hax_enabled)? Is this wrong for whpx? */
>> if (!tcg_enabled()) {
>>
Hi all,
could you give a check to this detail, marked as a comment here?
While doing the refactoring and looking at the history,
I _think_ I noticed something that could be wrong related to whpx and hax,
and I marked this as a comment. Maybe Paolo?
On 8/3/20 11:05 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
The new interface starts unused, will start being used by the
next patches.
It provides methods for each accelerator to start a vcpu, kick a vcpu,
synchronize state, get cpu virtual clock and elapsed ticks.
Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana
---
hw/core/cpu.c | 1 +
