On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:50:08PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Christoffer,
On 28/05/15 19:49, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time
On 09/06/15 15:43, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:50:08PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Christoffer,
On 28/05/15 19:49, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
On 06/08/2015 04:35 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:24:07AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 06/02/2015 02:27 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/30/2015 11:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Hi Mario,
On Fri,
Hi Christoffer,
On 28/05/15 19:49, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
interrupts occurring while the
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:24:07AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 06/02/2015 02:27 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/30/2015 11:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Mario
On 06/02/2015 02:27 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/30/2015 11:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/30/2015 11:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 03:37:32PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.06.2015 um 15:35 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.06.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they
[replying to myself]
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:27:59AM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
[..]
If this patch is incorrect, then how does it work on x86, where
handle_external_intr() is called (with a barrier in between) before
kvm_guest_exit(), and where handle_external_intr() is
On 01/06/2015 13:42, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.06.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 01/06/2015 09:47, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
1: disable, guest, disable again and save, restore to disable,
enable
and now it is
2: disable, guest, enable
and with your patch it is
3:
Am 01.06.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 01/06/2015 09:47, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
1: disable, guest, disable again and save, restore to disable,
enable
and now it is
2: disable, guest, enable
and with your patch it is
3: disable, guest, enable, disable, enable
I assume
On 01/06/2015 09:47, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
1: disable, guest, disable again and save, restore to disable,
enable
and now it is
2: disable, guest, enable
and with your patch it is
3: disable, guest, enable, disable, enable
I assume that 3 and 1 are similar in its costs, so this
Am 28.05.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
interrupts occurring while the guest is
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:47:46AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 28.05.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting
Am 01.06.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't understand how
guest CPU time accounting works on those architectures.
Not an expert here, but I assume mips has the same
On 05/30/2015 11:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.06.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't understand how
guest CPU time accounting works
Am 01.06.2015 um 15:35 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 01.06.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:34:47PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time
On 05/28/2015 11:49 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
interrupts occurring while the guest is running
Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
interrupts occurring while the guest is running doesn't properly notice
that the time since the
21 matches
Mail list logo
