On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:10:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:31 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I'd like to see kvmtools remove support for legacy mode altogether,
but they probably
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi all,
a few weeks ago I (and a few others) started hacking on a
proof-of-concept hypervisor port to Cortex-A15 which uses and requires
ARMv7 virtualization extensions. The intention of this
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Anup Patel wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to know how Xen-ARM for A15 will address following concerns:
- How will Xen-ARM for A15 support legacy guest environment like ARMv5 or
ARMv6 ?
It is not our focus at the moment; we are targeting operating systems
that support a
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
This mentions iommu - is there a need to use dma api to let
the firmware acess the rings? Or does it have access to all
of memory?
IOMMU may or may not be used, it really depends on the hardware (my
personal SoC does
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Is an extra branch faster or slower than reverting d57ed95?
Sorry, unfortunately I have no way to measure this, as I don't have
any virtualization/x86
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Do you have a pointer to the kernel sources for the Linux guest?
We have very few changes to the Linux kernel at the moment (only 3
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 10:10 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:31 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I'd like to see kvmtools remove support for legacy mode altogether,
but they probably have
Hi all,
here is the specification for a virtio-based SCSI host (controller, HBA,
you name it). The virtio SCSI host is the basis of an alternative
storage stack for KVM. This stack would overcome several limitations of
the current solution, virtio-blk:
1) scalability limitations:
Appendix H: SCSI Host Device
The virtio SCSI host device groups together one or more simple
virtual devices (ie. disk), and allows communicating to these
devices using the SCSI protocol. An instance of the device
represents a SCSI host with possibly many buses (also known as
channels or paths),
On 11/30/2011 02:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Appendix H: SCSI Host Device
The virtio SCSI host device groups together one or more simple
virtual devices (ie. disk), and allows communicating to these
devices using the SCSI protocol. An instance of the device
represents a SCSI host with
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On 30 November 2011 11:39, Stefano Stabellini
stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
A git branch is available here (not ready for submission):
git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/linux-pvhvm.git arm
the branch above is based on
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
This is the same choice people have made for KVM, but it's not
necessarily the best option in the long run. In particular, this
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I don't care much either way, but I think it would be good to
use similar solutions across all hypervisors. The two options
that I've seen discussed for KVM were to use either a virtual PCI
bus with individual virtio-pci devices as on the
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:45:05PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
So you put virtio rings in MMIO memory?
I'll be precise: the vrings are created in non-cacheable memory, which
both processors have access to.
Could you please give a couple of examples of breakage?
Sure. Basically, the
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
I see. And this happens because the ARM processor reorders
memory writes
Yes.
And in an SMP configuration, writes are somehow not reordered?
They are, but then the smp memory barriers are enough to control these
Hi all,
I wanted to know how Xen-ARM for A15 will address following concerns:
- How will Xen-ARM for A15 support legacy guest environment like ARMv5 or
ARMv6 ?
- What if my Cortex-A15 board does not have a GIC with virtualization
support ?
Best Regards,
Anup Patel
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:59
The 4-patch series to follow this email extends KVM-hypervisor and Linux guest
running on KVM-hypervisor to support pv-ticket spinlocks, based on Xen's
implementation.
One hypercall is introduced in KVM hypervisor,that allows a vcpu to kick
another vcpu out of halt state.
The blocking of vcpu
Add a hypercall to KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks
KVM_HC_KICK_CPU allows the calling vcpu to kick another vcpu out of halt state.
The presence of these hypercalls is indicated to guest via
KVM_FEATURE_KICK_VCPU/KVM_CAP_KICK_VCPU.
Qemu needs a corresponding patch to pass up the
This patch extends Linux guests running on KVM hypervisor to support
pv-ticketlocks.
During smp_boot_cpus paravirtualied KVM guest detects if the hypervisor has
required feature (KVM_FEATURE_KICK_VCPU) to support pv-ticketlocks. If so,
support for pv-ticketlocks is registered via pv_lock_ops.
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Do you have a pointer to the kernel sources for the Linux guest?
We
On 30 November 2011 11:39, Stefano Stabellini
stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
A git branch is available here (not ready for submission):
git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/linux-pvhvm.git arm
the branch above is based on git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6.git arm-lpae,
even though
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:04:56PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
I see. And this happens because the ARM processor reorders
memory writes
Yes.
And in an SMP configuration, writes are somehow not reordered?
Sorry, I forgot to copy-paste one of the results :)
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:11 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
I did some testing of indirect descriptors under different workloads.
All tests were on a 2 vcpu guest with vhost on. Simple TCP_STREAM using
netperf.
Indirect desc off:
guest -
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:03 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
For domU the DT would presumably be constructed by the toolstack (in
dom0 userspace) as appropriate for the guest configuration.
On 11/30/2011 03:17 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
seg_max is the maximum number of segments that can be in a
command. A bidirectional command can include seg_max input
segments and seg_max output segments.
I would like to have the other request_queue limitations exposed
here, too.
Most
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 14:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
What I suggested to the KVM developers is to start out with the
vexpress platform, but then generalize it to the point where it fits
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
In principal we could also offer the user options as to which particular
platform a guest looks like.
At least when using a qemu based simulation. Most platforms have some
characteristics that are not meaningful in a classic virtualization
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
make headers_install
make -C tools/virtio/
(you'll need an empty stub for tools/virtio/linux/module.h,
I just sent a patch to add that)
sudo insmod tools/virtio/vhost_test/vhost_test.ko
./tools/virtio/virtio_test
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:43:08AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
make headers_install
make -C tools/virtio/
(you'll need an empty stub for tools/virtio/linux/module.h,
I just sent a patch to add that)
sudo insmod
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
How are the rings mapped? normal memory, right?
No, device memory.
Ok, I have more info.
Originally remoteproc was mapping the rings using
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:27:10AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
How are the rings mapped? normal memory, right?
No, device memory.
Ok, I
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:11:51 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:58 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/29/2011 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Which is actually strange, weren't indirect buffers introduced to make
the performance *better*?
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:36:30 +, Pawel Moll pawel.m...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 00:31 +, Rusty Russell wrote:
Off the top of my head, this makes me think of the way initcalls are
ordered. We could put a parameter parsing initcall at the start of each
initcall level in
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:12:43 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 10:10 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:31 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I'd like to see
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:50:41 +0100, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
here is the specification for a virtio-based SCSI host (controller, HBA,
you name it). The virtio SCSI host is the basis of an alternative
storage stack for KVM. This stack would overcome several
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
So let's forget the virtio strangeness for a minute,
Hmm, we got away with light barriers because we knew we
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
But then you can't use the same kernel image for both scenarios.
It won't take long until people will use virtio on
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
And these accesses need to be ordered with DSB? Or DMB?
DMB (i.e. smp barriers) should be enough within Normal memory
accesses, though the other issues that were reported to me are a bit
concerning. I'm still trying to get
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Hmm, we got away with light barriers because we knew we were not
*really* talking to a device. But now with virtio-mmio, turns out we
are :)
I'm really tempted to revert d57ed95 for 3.2, and we can revisit this
On 11/30/2011 05:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/30/2011 03:17 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
seg_max is the maximum number of segments that can be in a
command. A bidirectional command can include seg_max input
segments and seg_max output segments.
I would like to have the other request_queue
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:12:25PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:11:51 +0200, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:58 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/29/2011 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Which is actually strange, weren't
41 matches
Mail list logo
