Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [RFC QEMU PATCH v3 00/10] Implement vNVDIMM for Xen HVM guest

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:53:26 +0800 Haozhong Zhang wrote: > On 10/12/17 17:45 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 12/10/2017 14:45, Haozhong Zhang wrote: > > > Basically, QEMU builds two ROMs for guest, /rom@etc/acpi/tables and > > > /rom@etc/table-loader. The former is

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC QEMU PATCH v3 00/10] Implement vNVDIMM for Xen HVM guest

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:41:47 +0800 Haozhong Zhang wrote: > This is the QEMU part patches that works with the associated Xen > patches to enable vNVDIMM support for Xen HVM domains. Xen relies on > QEMU to build guest NFIT and NVDIMM namespace devices, and allocate >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v3 2/3] hw/acpi: Move acpi_set_pci_info to pcihp

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:31:07 +0100 Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:37:34AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 04:40:02 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v3 2/3] hw/acpi: Move acpi_set_pci_info to pcihp

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:23:46 +0100 Anthony PERARD wrote: > This means that the function will be call and the property > acpi-pcihp-bsel will be set even if ACPI build is disable. s/call/called/ s/disable/disabled/ Maybe something along this lines: HW part of APCI PCI

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v3 2/3] hw/acpi: Move acpi_set_pci_info to pcihp

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 04:40:02 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 05:23:46PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > This means that the function will be call and the property > > acpi-pcihp-bsel will be set even if ACPI build is disable. > > > > To do PCI

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v2 1/2] hw/acpi: Call acpi_set_pci_info when no ACPI tables needed

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:23:27 +0100 Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:10:46AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:24:08 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v2 1/2] hw/acpi: Call acpi_set_pci_info when no ACPI tables needed

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:24:08 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 02:07:51PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:15:48 +0100 > > Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > &g

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-2.10 v2 1/2] hw/acpi: Call acpi_set_pci_info when no ACPI tables needed

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:15:48 +0100 Anthony PERARD wrote: > To do PCI passthrough with Xen, the property acpi-pcihp-bsel needs to be > set, but this was done only when ACPI tables are built which is not > needed for a Xen guest. The need for the property starts with

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:28:25 +0100 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon 13-03-17 11:55:54, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:54:00 +0100 > > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > It's ma

Re: [Xen-devel] WTH is going on with memory hotplug sysf interface (was: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks)

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:43:02 +0100 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon 13-03-17 11:31:10, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:58:07 +0100 > [...] > > > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x-0x0009] > > > [0.0

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:54:00 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > It's major regression if you remove auto online in kernels that > > run on top of x86 kvm/vmware hypervisors, making API cleanups > > while breaking useful functionality doesn't make sense. > > > > I would ACK

Re: [Xen-devel] WTH is going on with memory hotplug sysf interface (was: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks)

re allowed from > last blocks. More below. > > On Thu 09-03-17 13:54:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 07-03-17 13:40:04, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:54:17 +0100 > > > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:54:17 +0100 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri 03-03-17 18:34:22, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:27:23 +0100 > > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu 02-03-17 18:03:15, Igor Mamme

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:27:23 +0100 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu 02-03-17 18:03:15, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:28:16 +0100 > > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu 02-03-17 14:53:48, Igor

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:28:16 +0100 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu 02-03-17 14:53:48, Igor Mammedov wrote: > [...] > > When trying to support memory unplug on guest side in RHEL7, > > experience shows otherwise. Simplistic udev rule which onlines >

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks

On Mon 27-02-17 16:43:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 27-02-17 12:25:10, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:02:09AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > > A couple of other thoughts: > > > 1) Having all newly added memory online ASAP is probably what people > > > want for all

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 3/7] fw-cfg: expose "file_slots" parameter in fw_cfg_init_io_dma()

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 17:46:51 +0100 Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/06/16 12:49, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:06:20 +0100 > > Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> Accordingly, generalize the "file_slots&

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] xenfv: set has_acpi_build to false

ct kernel boot on Xen doesn't boot > anymore, because the new ACPI tables cause the guest to exceed its > memory allocation limit. > > Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <li...@eikelenboom.it> > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <ima

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:29:58 +0100 Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:26:49PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:10:58 +0100 > > Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 2

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:10:58 +0100 Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03:42PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > Cc Sander > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:22:34 +010

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:22:34 +0100 Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:28:04 +0100 > > Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > Xen's toolstack is in

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:22:34 +0100 Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:28:04 +0100 > > Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > Xen's toolstack is in

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: don't build acpi tables for xen hvm guests

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:28:04 +0100 Wei Liu wrote: > Xen's toolstack is in charge of building ACPI tables. Skip acpi table > building if running on Xen. > > This issue is discovered due to direct kernel boot on Xen doesn't boot > anymore, because the new ACPI tables cause

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] memory-hotplug: add automatic onlining policy for the newly added memory

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:47:12 +0100 Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Andrew Morton writes: > > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:32:30 +0100 Vitaly Kuznetsov > > wrote: > > > >> Currently, all newly added memory blocks remain in 'offline'