On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:27:19PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I would suggest not to implement mprotect+sigsegv because maintaining
> both APIs would be messy but mostly because mprotect cannot really
> work for all cases and it would risk to fail at any time with
> -ENOMEM. postcopy live
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:30:49AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> I think it should, or at least I think all other kernel things end up being
> caught by userfaultfd during postcopy.
Yes indeed, it will work. vhost blocks in its own task context inside
the kernel and the
* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Perhaps this approach can be prototyped with mprotect and a SIGSEGV
> > handler if anyone wants to get async savevm going. I don't know if
> > there are any
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Perhaps this approach can be prototyped with mprotect and a SIGSEGV
> handler if anyone wants to get async savevm going. I don't know if
> there are any disadvantages to mprotecting guest RAM that the kvm kernel
>
On 2016/10/12 22:21, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@gmail.com) wrote:
John and I recently discussed asynchronous savevm and I wanted to post
the ideas so they aren't forgotten. (We're not actively working on this
feature.)
Asynchronous savevm has the same effect as
On 10/12/2016 05:04 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> John and I recently discussed asynchronous savevm and I wanted to post
> the ideas so they aren't forgotten. (We're not actively working on this
> feature.)
>
> Asynchronous savevm has the same effect as the 'savevm' monitor command:
> it saves
* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@gmail.com) wrote:
> John and I recently discussed asynchronous savevm and I wanted to post
> the ideas so they aren't forgotten. (We're not actively working on this
> feature.)
>
> Asynchronous savevm has the same effect as the 'savevm' monitor command:
> it saves
On 10/12/2016 09:04 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> John and I recently discussed asynchronous savevm and I wanted to post
> the ideas so they aren't forgotten. (We're not actively working on this
> feature.)
>
> Asynchronous savevm has the same effect as the 'savevm' monitor command:
> it saves
John and I recently discussed asynchronous savevm and I wanted to post
the ideas so they aren't forgotten. (We're not actively working on this
feature.)
Asynchronous savevm has the same effect as the 'savevm' monitor command:
it saves RAM, device state, and a snapshot of all disks at the point