"Ren, Yongjie" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:04 AM
>> To: Ren, Yongjie
>> Cc: KVM General; Avi Kivity
>> Subject: Re: [qemu bug] device assignment doesn't work: "error: requires KVM
>> supp
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:04 AM
> To: Ren, Yongjie
> Cc: KVM General; Avi Kivity
> Subject: Re: [qemu bug] device assignment doesn't work: "error: requires KVM
> support"
>
> On Thu, 2011-10-27 at
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 10:56 +0800, Ren, Yongjie wrote:
> Hi,
> When doing device assignment with qemu and kvm upstream, I met "error:
> requires KVM support".
> Please also refer to the bug in qemu bugzilla.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/882358
>
> qemu.git commit:8843cf40c0f482949e6a
Hi,
When doing device assignment with qemu and kvm upstream, I met "error: requires
KVM support".
Please also refer to the bug in qemu bugzilla.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/882358
qemu.git commit:8843cf40c0f482949e6ae9d0119e45d6b96fe890
I met the following error when doing device ass
On 10/27/2011 09:32 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:49:12 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> Network connections in guest need to be kept after migration. This is done by
>> sending gratuitous packet and let switch learn new port of the mac
>> address. As hypervisor does not have the kn
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:49:12 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> Network connections in guest need to be kept after migration. This is done by
> sending gratuitous packet and let switch learn new port of the mac
> address. As hypervisor does not have the knowledge of guest network
> configurations such as
Add ACPI_EXTRACT_ALL_CODE directive, to support extracting
AML code from listing into a named array. Use that instead including C
file generated by iasl, this makes it possible to include multiple AML
tables without resorting to preprocessor tricks.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
---
Kevin,
On 10/25/2011 10:32 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 25.10.2011 15:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 10/25/2011 07:35 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 24.10.2011 13:35, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 10/24/2011 01:04 PM, Juan Q
On 10/26/2011 03:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
On 10/27/2011 01:16 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 10/26/2011 12:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/26/2011 12:04 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
our current aim was to have before any printk happens.
So I 'll trim the comment to somethings
On 10/26/2011 12:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 12:04 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 10/23/2011 12:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> This patch extends Linux guests running on KVM hypervisor to support
>>> +/*
>>> + * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_WAIT_FOR_KICK if pr
On 10/26/2011 12:05 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_DEBUG_FS
+
+#include
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_KVM_DEBUG_FS */
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
This is a big mess. Is there any problem
On 10/26/2011 12:04 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This patch extends Linux guests running on KVM hypervisor to support
+/*
+ * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_WAIT_FOR_KICK if present.
+ * This needs to be setup really early in boot, befor
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder
On 10/26/2011 12:47 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 16:41, schrieb Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues:
Hi folks:
We've captured a regression with floppy disk on recent qemu (and
qemu-kvm, after a code merge). We bisected it to be caused by:
commit 212ec7baa28cc9d819234fed1541fc1423cfe3d8
Author: Ric
On 10/26/2011 12:47 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 16:41, schrieb Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues:
Hi folks:
We've captured a regression with floppy disk on recent qemu (and
qemu-kvm, after a code merge). We bisected it to be caused by:
commit 212ec7baa28cc9d819234fed1541fc1423cfe3d8
Author: Ric
On 10/26/2011 01:47 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 16:41, schrieb Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues:
Hi folks:
We've captured a regression with floppy disk on recent qemu (and
qemu-kvm, after a code merge). We bisected it to be caused by:
commit 212ec7baa28cc9d819234fed1541fc1423cfe3d8
Author: Ric
On 10/26/2011 10:40 AM, Jean-Philippe Menil wrote:
Hi,
i've just download qemu-kvm v0.15-1 from sourceforge, and compiled it:
qemu-system-x86_64 --version
QEMU emulator version 0.15.1 (qemu-kvm-0.15.1 Debian 0.15.1-dsiun1),
Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
But it seems that qemu-kvm deos
Am 26.10.2011 16:41, schrieb Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues:
> Hi folks:
>
> We've captured a regression with floppy disk on recent qemu (and
> qemu-kvm, after a code merge). We bisected it to be caused by:
>
> commit 212ec7baa28cc9d819234fed1541fc1423cfe3d8
> Author: Richard Henderson
> Date: Mon
Hi folks:
We've captured a regression with floppy disk on recent qemu (and
qemu-kvm, after a code merge). We bisected it to be caused by:
commit 212ec7baa28cc9d819234fed1541fc1423cfe3d8
Author: Richard Henderson
Date: Mon Aug 15 15:08:45 2011 -0700
fdc: Convert to isa_register_portio_l
qemu-kvm passes numa/SRAT topology information for smp_cpus to SeaBIOS. However
SeaBIOS always expects to setup max_cpus number of SRAT cpu entries
(MaxCountCPUs variable in build_srat function of Seabios). When qemu-kvm runs
with smp_cpus != max_cpus (e.g. -smp 2,maxcpus=4), Seabios will mistakenl
Am 26.10.2011 13:39, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:23:05PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 26.10.2011 11:57, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:23:05PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 26.10.2011 11:57, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Kevin Wolf writes:
> >>
> >>> Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevi
Am 26.10.2011 11:57, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Kevin Wolf writes:
>>
>>> Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 25.10.2011 15:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 10/26/2011 10:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Sector size is a device property.
>>
>> If the user asks for a 4K sector disk, and the backend can't support
>> that, we need to reject the configuration. Just like we reject
>> read-only backends for read/write disks.
>
The latter was already commented out, the former is redundant as well.
We always get the latest changes after return from the guest via
kvm_arch_post_run.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
---
target-i386/kvm.c |5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixe
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Kevin Wolf writes:
>
> > Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> >> On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> Am 25.10.2011 15:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> I'd be much more open to changing the default mode
On 10/26/2011 10:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Sector size is a device property.
If the user asks for a 4K sector disk, and the backend can't support
that, we need to reject the configuration. Just like we reject
read-only backends for read/write disks.
Isn't it the other way round, i.e. th
Hi,
i've just download qemu-kvm v0.15-1 from sourceforge, and compiled it:
qemu-system-x86_64 --version
QEMU emulator version 0.15.1 (qemu-kvm-0.15.1 Debian 0.15.1-dsiun1),
Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
But it seems that qemu-kvm deosn't have the pc-0.15 supported machine:
root@patro
Network connections in guest need to be kept after migration. This is done by
sending gratuitous packet and let switch learn new port of the mac
address. As hypervisor does not have the knowledge of guest network
configurations such as tagged vlan or ipv6, it may require guest to send
gratuitous pa
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 25.10.2011 15:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
I'd be much more open to changing the default mode to cache=none FWIW
since the
risk of data loss there is much, much l
Am 25.10.2011 16:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 10/25/2011 08:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 25.10.2011 15:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> I'd be much more open to changing the default mode to cache=none FWIW since
>>> the
>>> risk of data loss there is much, much lower.
>>
>> I think people s
33 matches
Mail list logo
