On 01/01/2012 06:27 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Orit Wasserman wrote:
On 12/30/2011 12:39 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/28/2011 07:25 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Intro
=
This patch series implements postcopy live migration.[1]
As discussed at KVM forum 2011
On 01/01/2012 04:01 PM, Ronen Hod wrote:
On 01/01/2012 12:16 PM, Dor Laor wrote:
On 12/29/2011 06:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/29/2011 10:07 AM, Dor Laor wrote:
On 12/26/2011 11:05 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/26/2011 05:14 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
btw you can get an additional sp
Hi
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Thanks, Juan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.or
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
> First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
> calendar is different O:-)
+1
> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
the roadmap
On 01/02/2012 02:46 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
the roadmap. In particular,
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
ti-tms570' rather t
On 26.12.2011, at 14:22, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 11:21 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> This moves gfn_to_memslot(), and the functions it calls, that is,
>> search_memslots() and __gfn_to_memslot(), from kvm_main.c to kvm_host.h
>> so that gfn_to_memslot() can be called from non-modular cod
On 2 January 2012 13:46, Andreas Färber wrote:
> * when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
> this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
> ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu overriding the
> container's default?
My initial inclinati
On 01/01/2012 05:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
By the way, drivers for solid-state devices can set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
to hint that seek time optimizations may be sub-optimal. NBD and
other virtual/pseudo device drivers set this flag. Should virtio-blk
set it and how does it affect performance?
On 01/02/2012 05:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > Or we could move the implementation into a header file, with an extra __
> > prefix, and have the C stubs call those inlines, so we have exactly on
> > instantiation. Your real mode code can then call the inlines.
>
> I like this version. That way
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 05:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >By the way, drivers for solid-state devices can set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
> >to hint that seek time optimizations may be sub-optimal. NBD and
> >other virtual/pseudo device drivers set th
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:45:42PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> win. The fact that you added batching suggests there is some benefit
> to what the request-based code path does. So find out what's good
> about the request-based code path and how to get the best of both
> worlds.
Batching prett
On 01/02/2012 05:15 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> When QEMU uses O_DIRECT, the guest should not use QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
> unless it is active for the host disk as well. (In doubt, as is the
> case for remote hosts accessed over NFS, I would also avoid NONROT
> and allow more coalescing).
Do
On 01/02/2012 06:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:45:42PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > win. The fact that you added batching suggests there is some benefit
> > to what the request-based code path does. So find out what's good
> > about the request-based code path
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:18:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >I tried a few times, and the only constant measureable
> >thing was that it regressed performance when used for rotating devices
> >in a few benchmarks.
>
> Were you trying with cache=none or writeback? For cache=none,
> that's exa
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 06:01:45PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 06:00 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > The NFS client has exactly the same issue, if you mount it with the intr
> > option. In fact you could use the NFS client as a trivial umem/cuse
> > prototype.
>
> Actually, NFS can return
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Dor Laor wrote:
> At the end of the day, it's performance testing using various scenarios that
> can educate us whether post-copy worth the extra complexity over slowing
> down the guest on the source.
True. It's certainly an interesting patch series to benchmark
On 01/02/2012 06:05 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 06:01:45PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/29/2011 06:00 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
The NFS client has exactly the same issue, if you mount it with the intr
option. In fact you could use the NFS client as a trivial umem/cuse
pro
On 12/31/2011 12:16 AM, Liu Yu wrote:
> Add a new field opt_feature in struct kvm_ppc_pvinfo
> to tell userspace whether it support hcall idle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Yu
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h | 18 ++
> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c |9 +
On 12/31/2011 12:16 AM, Liu Yu wrote:
> If the guest hypervisor node contains "has-idle" property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Yu
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm.c | 29 +
> 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm.c b/a
I'm going to summarize my questions first and write the long explanation
afterward...
1: What happens when Linux rejects the aperture allocated by the BIOS
for an AMD IOMMU?
2: What is unsafe about the allow_unsafe_assigned_interrupts option?
What are the potential consequences of its use?
3:
On 01/02/2012 07:46 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
+1
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be
On 01/02/2012 08:11 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/02/2012 02:46 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
the roadmap. In particular,
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are
On 01/02/2012 09:54 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 2 January 2012 13:46, Andreas Färber wrote:
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu overriding the
co
Hi~
Here is the problem:)
Without "vnclisten", guest is still accessable from localhost by vnc.
But we cannot access guest from other host.
And most of the time, we do the test on remote host, and in this situation,
"vnclisten" is very useful.:)
On 12/30/2011 06:36 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
Hi folks,
I reported some kvm kernel bugs at "bugzilla.kernel.org" before the kernel.org
was attacked.
Though kernel.org resumes, its bugzilla can't be accessed so far.
So, where should I report a kvm kernel bug? I mean not just reporting in this
mailing list but in a bugzilla to track.
Or, could
25 matches
Mail list logo
