On 09/18/2012 10:36 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 09/16/2012 08:07 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Instead of branchy code depending on level, gpte.ps, and mmu configuration,
>> prepare everything in a bitmap during mode changes and look it up during
>> runtime.
>>
>
On 09/19/2012 08:17 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 10:36 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 09/16/2012 08:07 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Instead of branchy code depending on level, gpte.ps, and mmu configuration,
>>> prepare everything in a bitmap during mode ch
On 09/20/2012 04:43 AM, Hao, Xudong wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Avi Kivity [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:24 PM
>> To: Hao, Xudong
>> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Zhang, Xiantao
>> Subject: Re: [P
On 09/14/2012 12:58 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Let it return emulate state instead of spte like __direct_map
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 28 ++--
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/
On 09/14/2012 12:59 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Wrap the common operations into these two functions
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 53 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 16 +
> 2 files changed, 39 in
On 09/19/2012 08:44 PM, Auld, Will wrote:
> From 9982bb73460b05c1328068aae047b14b2294e2da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Will Auld
> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:10:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Enabling IA32_TSC_ADJUST for guest VM
>
> CPUID.7.0.EBX[1]=1 indicates IA32_TSC_ADJUST MSR 0x3b is suppor
On 09/19/2012 08:44 PM, Auld, Will wrote:
> @@ -2241,6 +2244,13 @@ static int vmx_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
> msr_index, u64 data)
> }
> ret = kvm_set_msr_common(vcpu, msr_index, data);
> break;
> + case MSR_TSC_ADJUST:
> +#define DUMMY 1
> +
On 09/19/2012 10:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> If we reset a vcpu on INIT, make sure to not touch dr7 as stored in the
> VMCS/VMCB and also switch_db_regs if guest debugging is using hardware
> breakpoints. Otherwise, the vcpu will not trigger hardware breakpoints
> until userspace issues another KVM_
On 09/13/2012 05:19 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Most interrupt are delivered to only one vcpu. Use pre-build tables to
> find interrupt destination instead of looping through all vcpus. In case
> of logical mode loop only through vcpus in a logical cluster irq is sent
> to.
Applied, thanks.
--
er
On 09/21/2012 11:47 AM, Hao, Xudong wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Avi Kivity [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:20 PM
> > To: Hao, Xudong
> > Cc: Marcelo Tosatti; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Zhang, Xiantao
> > Subject:
On 09/21/2012 08:58 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> To emulate level triggered interrupts, add a resample option to
> KVM_IRQFD. When specified, a new resamplefd is provided that notifies
> the user when the irqchip has been resampled by the VM. This may, for
> instance, indicate an EOI. Also in th
On 09/21/2012 06:42 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> If we reset a vcpu on INIT, we so far overwrote dr7 as provided by
> KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG, and we also cleared switch_db_regs unconditionally.
>
> Fix this by saving the dr7 used for guest debugging and calculating the
> effective reg
On 09/24/2012 07:55 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 01:05 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Currently, any time a request bit is set (not too uncommon) we check all of
>> them.
>> This patchset optimizes the process slightly by skipping over unset bits
>> using
>&g
On 09/24/2012 08:24 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> This is an RFC since I have not done any comparison with the approach
> using for_each_set_bit() which can be seen in Avi's work.
>
> Takuya
> ---
>
> We did a simple test to see which requests we would get at the same time
> in vcpu_enter_g
On 09/24/2012 12:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 05:48 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 07:55 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2012 01:05 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>> Currently, any time a request bit is set (not too uncommon) we check all
&g
On 09/24/2012 09:16 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:24:47PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> This is an RFC since I have not done any comparison with the approach
>> using for_each_set_bit() which can be seen in Avi's work.
>>
>> Takuya
>> ---
>>
>> We did a simple test
On 09/24/2012 08:59 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 02:24 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> This is an RFC since I have not done any comparison with the approach
>> using for_each_set_bit() which can be seen in Avi's work.
>>
>
> Why not compare it? I think for_each_set_bit is better and i
On 09/24/2012 01:16 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 06:52 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 12:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> On 09/24/2012 05:48 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>> On 09/24/2012 07:55 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>>
On 09/24/2012 05:28 AM, Xudong Hao wrote:
> Enable KVM FPU fully eager restore, if there is other FPU state which isn't
> tracked by CR0.TS bit.
>
> v4 changes from v3:
> - Wrap up some confused code with a clear functio lazy_fpu_allowed()
> - Update fpu while update cr4 too.
>
> v3 changes from
On 09/24/2012 04:14 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:18:15 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 09/24/2012 08:24 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> > This is an RFC since I have not done any comparison with the approach
>> > using for_each_set_bit(
On 09/24/2012 04:32 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:09:00 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> > while (vcpu->request) {
>> >xchg(vcpu->request, request);
>> >
>> >for_
On 09/21/2012 03:00 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T
>
> When PLE handler fails to find a better candidate to yield_to, it
> goes back and does spin again. This is acceptable when we do not
> have overcommit.
> But in overcommitted scenarios (especially when we have large
> numb
On 09/21/2012 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 06:32 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 09/21/2012 08:00 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> From: Raghavendra K T
>>>
>>> When total number of VCPUs of system is less than or equal to physical
>>> CPUs,
>>> PLE exits become costly since each V
On 09/24/2012 05:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:26 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> I think this is a no-op these (CFS) days. To get schedule() to do
>> anything, you need to wake up a task, or let time pass, or block.
>> Otherwise it will see that nothi
On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:59 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> However Rik had a genuine concern in the cases where runqueue is not
>> equally distributed and lockholder might actually be on a different run
>> queue but not running.
>
> Load should ev
On 09/24/2012 05:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:43 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Wouldn't this correspond to the scheduler interrupt firing and causing a
>> reschedule? I thought the timer was programmed for exactly the point in
>> time that CFS co
On 09/24/2012 05:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>>
>> case 2)
>> rq1 : vcpu1->wait(lockA) (spinning)
>> rq2 : vcpu3 (running) , vcpu2->holding(lockA) [scheduled out]
>>
>> I agree that checking rq1 length is not proper in this case, and as you
&
On 09/24/2012 06:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:58 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> There is the TSC deadline timer mode of newer Intels. Programming the
>> timer is a simple wrmsr, and it will fire immediately if it already
>> expired. Unfortunat
On 09/24/2012 06:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:51 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 03:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:59 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> >> However Rik had a genuine concern in t
On 09/24/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:10 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > Its also still a LAPIC write -- disguised as an MSR though :/
>>
>> It's probably a whole lot faster though.
>
> I've been told its not, I hav
On 09/24/2012 06:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:06 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> We would probably need a ->sched_exit() preempt notifier to make this
>> work. Peter, I know how much you love those, would it be acceptable?
>
> Where exact
On 09/25/2012 09:36 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 09:11 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/21/2012 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> On 09/21/2012 06:32 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>> On 09/21/2012 08:00 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>>> From:
On 09/25/2012 04:32 AM, Hao, Xudong wrote:
> >
> > btw, it is clear that long term the fpu will always be eagerly loaded,
> > as hosts and guests (and hardware) are updated. At that time it will
> > make sense to remove the lazy fpu code entirely. But maybe that time is
> > here already, since e
On 09/25/2012 10:09 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 09:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 05:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> case 2)
>>>> rq1 : vcpu1->wait(lockA) (spinning)
>>>> rq2 : vcpu3 (running) ,
On 09/24/2012 06:21 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:10 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> > Its also still a LAPIC write -- disguised as an MSR though :/
> >>
> >> It's probably a whole lot
On 09/25/2012 03:40 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 07:46 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 07:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:59 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
However Rik had a genuine concern in the cases where runqueue is not
equally distr
On 09/25/2012 04:21 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:12:49 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> It will. The tradeoff is between false-positive costs (undercommit) and
>> true positive costs (overcommit). I think undercommit should perform
>> well n
On 09/25/2012 04:43 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
> I've actually implemented this preempted_bitmap idea.
Interesting, please share the code if you can.
> However, I'm doing this to expose this information to the guest, so the
> guest is able to know if the lock holder is preempted or not before
> s
On 09/27/2012 09:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:54:21AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/25/2012 10:09 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> > On 09/24/2012 09:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> On 09/24/2012 05:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >
On 09/26/2012 04:06 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:50:13 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Afterwards, most exits are APIC and interrupt related, HLT, and MMIO.
>> Of these, some are special (HLT, interrupt injection) and some are not
>> (read/wri
On 09/27/2012 11:11 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>> User return notifier is per-cpu, not per-task. There is a new task_work
>> () that does what you want. With these
>> technicalities out of the way, I think it's the wrong idea. If a vcpu
>> thread is in userspace, that doesn't mean it's preempte
On 09/27/2012 11:58 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> btw, we can have secondary effects. A vcpu can be waiting for a lock in
>> >> the host kernel, or for a host page fault. There's no point in boosting
>> >> anything for that. Or a vcpu in userspace can be waiting for a lock
>> >> that i
On 09/26/2012 07:54 AM, Hao, Xudong wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
>> Behalf Of Avi Kivity
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:16 PM
>> To: Hao, Xudong
>> Cc: kvm@vger.kerne
On 09/27/2012 12:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:04:58PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/27/2012 11:58 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> btw, we can have secondary effects. A vcpu can be waiting for a l
On 09/27/2012 12:28 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> No, I am not there yet.
>>
>> So In summary, we are suffering with inconsistent benchmark result,
>> while measuring the benefit of our improvement in PLE/pvlock etc..
>
> Are you measuring the combined throughput of all running guests, or
> just lo
On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>
>> This gives us a good case for tracking preemption on a per-vm basis. As
>> long as we aren't preempted, we can keep the PLE window high, and also
>> return immediately from the handler without looking for candidates.
>
> 1) So do you think, def
On 09/27/2012 01:26 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 02:20 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/25/2012 04:43 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
>>> I've actually implemented this preempted_bitmap idea.
>>
>> Interesting, please share the code if you can.
>>
&
On 09/27/2012 05:02 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 20/09/12 07:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:16:08AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> FYI, there are new compile warnings show up in
>>>
>>> tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git q
On 09/27/2012 05:29 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Recent changes (KVM: make processes waiting on vcpu mutex killable)
> now requires to check the return value of vcpu_load. This triggered
> a warning in s390 specific kvm code. Turns out that we can actually
> remove the put/load, since schedul
On 09/24/2012 02:32 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> 3 places after the whole patchset (There are some cleanups after this patch).
>
>> and one by even stronger is_error_pfn().
>
> This one is:
>
> | if (!is_error_pfn(pfn)) {
> |kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> |ret
On 09/27/2012 06:03 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:46:01AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 23.08.2012, at 03:04, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>> > We were only allocating half the bytes we need, which was made more
>> > obvious by a recent fix to the memset in clear_tlb1_b
On 09/28/2012 08:18 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >> PLE:
>> >> - works for unmodified / non-Linux guests
>> >> - works for all types of spins (e.g. smp_call_function*())
>> >> - utilizes an existing hardware interface (PAUSE instruction) so likely
>> >> more robust compared to a software int
On 09/28/2012 08:16 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
>>
>> +struct pv_sched_info {
>> + unsigned long sched_bitmap;
>
> Thinking, whether we need something similar to cpumask here?
> Only thing is we are representing guest (v)cpumask.
>
DECLARE_BITMAP(sched_bitmap, KVM_MAX_VCPUS)
c
On 09/28/2012 01:40 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, with defer preemption :
>> >> we will have hook in spinlock/unlock path to measure depth of lock held,
>> >> and shared with host scheduler (may be via MSRs now).
>> >> Host scheduler 'prefers' not to preempt lock holding vcpu. (or
On 09/28/2012 05:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:40:44PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:28:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:54:00AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:45:43AM -0700, Pa
On 09/30/2012 01:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 08:16 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> +struct pv_sched_info {
>> >> + unsigned long sched_
On 09/27/2012 09:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Do you have the auto-autotest setup ready? I guess we can do it
>> manually until it is.
>
> I do have a local autotest setup. Or what exactly are you referring to?
Getting autotest to run automatically and produce readable reports, and
auto-bi
On 09/30/2012 01:18 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 01:10:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 05:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:40:44PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:28:50PM
On 09/30/2012 01:23 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 01:10:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 05:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:40:44PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:28:50PM
On 10/01/2012 12:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 30.09.2012, at 13:29, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 09/27/2012 09:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have the auto-autotest setup ready? I guess we can do it
>>>> manually until it is.
&g
On 10/03/2012 04:17 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> * Avi Kivity [2012-09-30 13:13:09]:
>
>> On 09/30/2012 01:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> On 09/28/2012 08:16 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>&
On 10/03/2012 02:22 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> So I think it's worth trying again with ple_window of 2-4.
>>
>
> Hi Avi,
>
> I ran different benchmarks increasing ple_window, and results does not
> seem to be encouraging for increasing ple_window.
Thanks for testing! Comments below.
On 10/03/2012 04:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> * Avi Kivity [2012-09-27 14:03:59]:
>
>> On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> >>
> [...]
>> > 2) looking at the result (comparing A & C) , I do feel we have
>> > significant in i
On 10/04/2012 12:49 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 10:35 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 02:22 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>> So I think it's worth trying again with ple_window of 2-4.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Avi,
>&
On 10/04/2012 12:56 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 10:55 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 04:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> * Avi Kivity [2012-09-27 14:03:59]:
>>>
>>>> On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>>>&
On 09/25/2012 05:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> + case KVM_GET_REG_LIST: {
>> + struct kvm_reg_list __user *user_list = argp;
>> + struct kvm_reg_list reg_list;
>> + unsigned n;
>> +
>> + if (copy_from_user(®_list, user_list, sizeof reg_li
Alex Williamson (1):
KVM: Add resampling irqfds for level triggered interrupts
Alexander Graf (1):
KVM: Add ppc hypercall documentation
Avi Kivity (36):
Merge branch 'queue' into next
KVM: Don't update PPR on any APIC
On 10/04/2012 03:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:41 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> Again the numbers are ridiculously high for arch_local_irq_restore.
>> Maybe there's a bad perf/kvm interaction when we're injecting an
>> interrupt,
On 10/05/2012 10:36 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>
>>> You can store i in the vcpu itself:
>>>
>>>set_bit(vcpu->index, &kvm->preempted);
>>>
>> This will make the fact that vcpus are stored in an array into API
>> instead of implementation detail :( There were patches for vcpu
>> destruction th
On 10/05/2012 11:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Hi Avi / Marcelo,
>
> Apparently I messed up while sending the pull request yesterday and didn't CC
> kvm@vger. Do you want me to resend or is this good enough for you? :)
This is fine now you've copied the list. Do any of the "small bug
fixes" wa
On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
> control behavior inside a core, so the best place to emulate them
> traditionally has been the kernel side of kvm.
>
> However, some SPRs should be emulated by user space. For example
On 10/07/2012 03:19 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 07.10.2012, at 15:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
>>> control behavior inside a core,
On 10/07/2012 03:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> Ah, yes. I forgot to add this exit to that section of the spec.
>
> Patch submitted :).
Ugh, the whole point of finding problems in patches is that I don't have
to think about them for a while. Posting a new patch in a few minutes
negates this
On 10/07/2012 03:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup. The new APIC MSR registers would also have the same problem, right?
>>
>> Which new APIC MSR registers?
>
> I thought x2apic can be accessed through MSRs? If you want to emulate that in
> user space, you need something similar.
It's em
On 10/09/2012 05:16 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>> We'll never remove legacy so we shouldn't plan on it. There are
>> literally hundreds of thousands of VMs out there with the current virtio
>> drivers installed in them. We'll be supporting them for a very, very
>> long ti
On 10/08/2012 07:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> From Intel's manual:
>
> • If an execution of WRMSR to the IA32_TIME_STAMP_COUNTER MSR adds (or
> subtracts) value X from the TSC,
> the logical processor also adds (or subtracts) value X from the
> IA32_TSC_ADJUST MSR.
>
> This is not handled i
On 10/04/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Hi,
>
> kvm-kmod 3.6 fails to compile against a 3.2.0 kernel with the following error:
>
> /usr/src/kvm-kmod-3.6/x86/x86.c: In function ‘get_msr_mce’:
> /usr/src/kvm-kmod-3.6/x86/x86.c:1908:27: error: ‘kvm’ undeclared (first use
> in this function)
>
On 10/09/2012 04:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:12:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/08/2012 07:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> >
>> > From Intel's manual:
>> >
>> > • If an execution of WRMSR to the IA32_TIME_
On 10/09/2012 04:27 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/09/2012 04:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:12:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> On 10/08/2012 07:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatt
On 10/12/2012 08:40 AM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> Currently, kdump just makes all the logical processors leave VMX operation by
> executing VMXOFF instruction, so any VMCSs active on the logical processors
> may
> be corrupted. But, sometimes, we need the VMCSs to debug guest images
> contained
> in
On 10/16/2012 08:53 AM, Hu, Xuekun wrote:
> Setting the same PLE parameter arbitrarily for different
> workloads is not a good solution.
True.
> The solution enables
> per domain PLE which gives user ability to set PLE parameter
> for different domain for better performance.
The problem with th
On 10/16/2012 11:12 AM, Lukas Laukamp wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I have a question about a solution for migrate LVM based guests directly
> over the network.
>
> So the situation: Two KVM hosts with libvirt, multiple LVM based guests
> Want to do: Migrate a LVM based guest directly to the other host o
On 10/16/2012 05:59 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The mmu_notifier_retry() function, used to test whether any page
> invalidations are in progress, currently takes a vcpu pointer, though
> the code only needs the VM's struct kvm pointer. Forthcoming patches
> to the powerpc Book3S HV code will need
On 10/16/2012 06:01 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> A new ioctl, KVM_PPC_GET_HTAB_FD, returns a file descriptor. Reads on
> this fd return the contents of the HPT (hashed page table), writes
> create and/or remove entries in the HPT. There is a new capability,
> KVM_CAP_PPC_HTAB_FD, to indicate the p
On 10/16/2012 11:48 AM, Lukas Laukamp wrote:
> Am 16.10.2012 11:40, schrieb Avi Kivity:
>> On 10/16/2012 11:12 AM, Lukas Laukamp wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I have a question about a solution for migrate LVM based guests directly
>>> over the network.
On 10/15/2012 02:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> In order to support vhost, we need to be able to support ioeventfd.
>
> This patch set adds support for ioeventfd to PPC and makes it possible to
> do so without implementing irqfd along the way, as it requires an in-kernel
> irqchip which we don't h
On 10/15/2012 02:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> The current eventfd code assumes that when we have eventfd, we also have
> irqfd for in-kernel interrupt delivery. This is not necessarily true. On
> PPC we don't have an in-kernel irqchip yet, but we can still support easily
> support eventfd.
>
Do
On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 16.10.2012, at 12:56, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2012 02:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> In order to support vhost, we need to be able to support ioeventfd.
>>>
>>> This patch set adds support
On 10/16/2012 01:58 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:06:58PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 06:01 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> > +4.78 KVM_PPC_GET_HTAB_FD
>> > +
>> > +Capability: KVM_CAP_PPC_HTAB_FD
>> >
On 10/16/2012 01:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 16.10.2012, at 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16.10.2012, at 12:56, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2012 02:02 PM, Alexander G
On 10/16/2012 01:57 PM, Rohan Sharma wrote:
> Is there a way to flush ept entries in qemu-kvm.
No.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordom
; I guess there is some mmu notifier which ensures that entries of EPT
> are synced with the host entries.
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 01:57 PM, Rohan Sharma wrote:
>>> Is there a way to flush ept entries in qemu-kvm.
&
On 10/17/2012 11:19 AM, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>>
>> I don't think so, but probably there's a limit of DIMMs that real
>> controllers have, something like 8 max.
>
> In the case of i440fx specifically, do you mean that we should model the DRB
> (Dram row boundary registers in section 3.2.19 o
On 10/17/2012 10:02 AM, Hu, Xuekun wrote:
>>
>> The problem with this is that it requires an administrator to understand the
>> workload, not only of the guest, but also of other guests on the machine.
>> With low overcommit, a high PLE window reduces unneeded exits, but with
>> high overcommit we
On 10/17/2012 04:28 AM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> 于 2012年10月15日 23:43, Avi Kivity 写道:
>> On 10/12/2012 08:40 AM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>>> Currently, kdump just makes all the logical processors leave VMX operation
>>> by
>>> executing VMXOFF instruction, so any VM
On 10/16/2012 10:03 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> This forces userspace to dedicate a thread for the HPT.
>
> If no changes are available, does read return a size > 0? I don't think
> it's necessary to support polling. The kernel should always be able to
> respond to userspace here. The only
On 10/16/2012 11:52 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:06:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 01:58 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:06:58PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> Does/should the fd support O_NONBLOCK an
On 10/17/2012 04:10 AM, Will Auld wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Will Auld
> ---
>
> Resending to full list
>
> Marcelo,
>
> This patch is what I believe you ask for as foundational for later
> patches to address IA32_TSC_ADJUST.
>
Please write a changelog to reflect the motivation.
All those bool
On 10/17/2012 11:20 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am testing KVM on an Oracle NFS box that I have.
>
> Does the list have any advice on best practice? I remember reading that there
> is stuff you can do with I/O schedulers and stuff to make it more efficient.
>
> My VMs will primarily
On 10/17/2012 01:04 PM, Andrew Holway wrote:
>
>
>> O_DIRECT is good. I/O schedulers don't affect NFS so no need to tune
>> anything on the host. You might experiment with switching to the
>> deadline scheduler in the guest.
>
> Ill give it a go. Any ideas how I should be tuning my NFS?
Not r
601 - 700 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
