Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky Current PVH implementation has never been described as production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level. So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g? From user perspective that will be

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 06:49 PM, Brendan Gregg wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky > wrote: Current PVH implementation has never been described as production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

>>> On 01.02.16 at 20:17, wrote: > On 02/01/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote: > > > This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI: > intercept accesses to RO MMIO from

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote: > This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI: > intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from > unstable, which fixes PVH regression introduced by 9256f66c1606 > ("x86/PCI: intercept all PV

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/02/2016 07:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: So would you please confirm that this indeed fixes your issue? I'm hesitant to put it in without confirmation, and it's likely too late for 4.6.1 now anyway (so would then only appear in 4.6.2). I don't build Xen. I use packages provided by Opensuse

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes? Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support. If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to have it integrated into:

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 10:49 AM, PGNet Dev wrote: On 02/01/2016 06:11 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to Linux (especially given that AMD was still not supported). Is 'HVMLite'

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote: This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI: intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from unstable, which fixes PVH regression introduced by

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > >> On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> >>> Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes? >>> >>> Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH.

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

(Cc Roger) On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote: > I run Xen 4.6 Dom0 > > rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4" > kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64 > xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64 > > My guests are currently HVM in PVHVM

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

El 31/01/16 a les 22.27, PGNet Dev ha escrit: > I run Xen 4.6 Dom0 > > rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4" > kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64 > xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64 Are your kernels compiled with CONFIG_PVH enabled? > My guests are currently HVM in

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

El 01/02/16 a les 4.47, PGNet Dev ha escrit: > In any case, the !st issue, prior to any guest being launched, simply > adding > >> @ GRUBG cfg >> >> -GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" ..." >> +GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" dom0pvh ..." Does your kernel support PVH mode (ie: CONFIG_PVH enabled?) > causes boot

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 05:28 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: IIRC Boris (CCed) added support for 32bit PVH to Linux, so you should be able to use either 32 or 64 kernels. Roger. This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

I'll get the dom0pvh issue logs posted. http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/pvh-readme.txt " ... To boot 64bit dom0 in PVH mode, add dom0pvh to grub xen command line. ..." http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=docs/misc/pvh.markdown no

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote: > On 02/01/2016 08:38 AM, PGNet Dev wrote: >> >> Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default >> ...Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default ... >> >> /EndEntire >> /EndEntire >> file path: file

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 02:30 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: Does your kernel support PVH mode (ie: CONFIG_PVH enabled?) not CONFIG_PVH, but per http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Linux_PVH egrep \

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote: (Cc Roger) On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote: I run Xen 4.6 Dom0 rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4" kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64 xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64 My

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

El 01/02/16 a les 13.23, PGNet Dev ha escrit: > On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > > (1) http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/pvh.html > > which also looks 'dusty' > > This looks more promising, > > (2) https://github.com/mirage/xen/blob/master/docs/misc/pvh.markdown > > That the

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 04:23:46AM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > >(Cc Roger) > > > >On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote: > >>I run Xen 4.6 Dom0 > >> > >>rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4" > >>

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 04:29 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=docs/misc/pvh.markdown That's all sorted now, thanks. I'll get the dom0pvh issue logs posted. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 02:28 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: Do any of these^^ params need to also change with the addition of pvh = 1 Yes, you need to remove builder, xen_platform_pci and device_model_version, and add a kernel and ramdisk parameters that point to the actual kernel and ramdisk

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes? Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support. If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to have it

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 08:38 AM, PGNet Dev wrote: Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default ...Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default ... /EndEntire /EndEntire file path: file path:

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

On 02/01/2016 06:11 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to Linux (especially given that AMD was still not supported). Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?

[Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

I run Xen 4.6 Dom0 rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4" kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64 xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64 My guests are currently HVM in PVHVM mode; I'm exploring PVH. IIUC, for 4.6, this doc

Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

In any case, the !st issue, prior to any guest being launched, simply adding @ GRUBG cfg -GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" ..." +GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" dom0pvh ..." causes boot fail, ... (XEN) [2016-01-31 19:28:09] d0v0 EPT violation 0x1aa (-w-/r-x) gpa 0x00f100054c mfn 0xf15 (XEN) [2016-01-31