On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Looks good to me. I'll sit on this for a little while if the
> virtio-scsi folks want to comment on the code.
Applied, thanks Asias!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.
On 08/19/2012 05:55 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 09:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 09:40 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter, do I need to submit a patch disables uncore on virtualized CPU?
>>>
>> I think Avi prefers the method where KVM 'fakes' the MSRs and we ha
On 08/19/2012 05:55 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 09:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 09:40 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter, do I need to submit a patch disables uncore on virtualized CPU?
>>>
>> I think Avi prefers the method where KVM 'fakes' the MSRs and we ha
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/19/2012 12:38 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 19 August 2012 05:34, Christoffer Dall
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
A single hva can have multiple gpas mapped, no? At least that's what I
g
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 04:34:50PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Aug 2012 16:07:05 Avi Kivity wrote:
> > (and that seabios needs changes to either work in
> > big real mode, or to put the processor back into big real mode after
> > returning from a PMM service.
>
> If seabios switches
On 08/19/2012 06:44 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 06:07:05PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> ipxe contains the following snippet:
>>
>> /* Copy ROM to image source PMM block */
>> pushw %es
>> xorw%ax, %ax
>> movw%ax, %es
>> movl%esi, %edi
>
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 06:07:05PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> ipxe contains the following snippet:
>
> /* Copy ROM to image source PMM block */
> pushw %es
> xorw%ax, %ax
> movw%ax, %es
> movl%esi, %edi
> xorl%esi, %esi
> movzbl romheade
On Sunday 19 Aug 2012 16:07:05 Avi Kivity wrote:
> Which is exactly what happens here. My understanding of big real mode is
> that to achieve a segment limit != 0x, you must go into 32-bit
> protected mode, load a segment with a larger limit, and return into real
> mode without touching the se
On 08/19/2012 06:34 PM, Michael Brown wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Aug 2012 16:07:05 Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Which is exactly what happens here. My understanding of big real mode is
>> that to achieve a segment limit != 0x, you must go into 32-bit
>> protected mode, load a segment with a larger limit, a
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 06:12:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/19/2012 06:09 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> The reason we use a local label is so that we the function isn't split
> >> into two from the profiler's point of view. See cd2276a795b013d1.
> >
> > Hmm that commit message is not very en
On 08/19/2012 06:09 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The reason we use a local label is so that we the function isn't split
>> into two from the profiler's point of view. See cd2276a795b013d1.
>
> Hmm that commit message is not very enlightening.
>
> The goal was to force a compiler error?
No, the goal
> The reason we use a local label is so that we the function isn't split
> into two from the profiler's point of view. See cd2276a795b013d1.
Hmm that commit message is not very enlightening.
The goal was to force a compiler error?
With LTO there is no way to force two functions be in the same a
ipxe contains the following snippet:
/* Copy ROM to image source PMM block */
pushw %es
xorw%ax, %ax
movw%ax, %es
movl%esi, %edi
xorl%esi, %esi
movzbl romheader_size, %ecx
shll$9, %ecx
addr32 rep movsb
On 08/17/2012 03:36 PM, Richard Davies wrote:
> Hi Avi,
>
> Thanks to you and several others for offering help. We will work with Avi at
> first, but are grateful for all the other offers of help. We have a number
> of other qemu-related projects which we'd be interested in getting done, and
> wil
On 08/19/2012 12:38 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 August 2012 05:34, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> A single hva can have multiple gpas mapped, no? At least that's what I
>>> gathered
>>> from the discussion about my attempt to a funct
The sub-register used to access the stack (sp, esp, or rsp) is not
determined by the address size attribute like other memory references,
but by the stack segment's B bit (if not in x86_64 mode).
Fix by using the existing stack_mask() to figure out the correct mask.
This long-existing bug was exp
On 08/17/2012 09:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 09:40 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>
>> Peter, do I need to submit a patch disables uncore on virtualized CPU?
>>
> I think Avi prefers the method where KVM 'fakes' the MSRs and we have to
> detect if the MSRs actually work or not
On 08/17/2012 01:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-07-10 12:41, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-07-02 11:07, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2012 07:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Instead of flushing pending coalesced MMIO requests on every vmexit,
this provides a mechanism to selectively flush wh
On 08/17/2012 06:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>>> Can anyone imagine that such a barrier may actually be required? If it
>>> is currently possible that env->stop is evaluated before we called into
>>> sigtimedwait in qemu_kvm_eat_signals, then we could actually eat the
>>> signal without properly p
On 08/17/2012 09:39 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Yes. Well, Avi mentioned earlier that there are users for change of GPA
> base. But, if my understanding is correct, the code that emulates
> change of BAR in QEMU is:
>
> /* now do the real mapping */
> if (r->addr != PCI_BAR_UNM
On 19 August 2012 05:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> A single hva can have multiple gpas mapped, no? At least that's what I
>> gathered
>> from the discussion about my attempt to a function similar to this :).
> I don't think this is the c
On 08/17/2012 08:29 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:54:49PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Instead of populating the the entire register file, read in registers
>> as they are accessed, and write back only the modified ones. This
>> saves a VMREAD and VMWRITE on Intel (for rsp
On 08/19/2012 05:56 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> The VMX code references a local assembler label between two inline
> assembler statements. This assumes they both end up in the same
> assembler files. In some experimental builds of gcc this is not
> necessarily true, causing linke
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 01:25:05AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 01:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> >> On 07/30/2012 07:33 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> >>> Hello Stefan,
> >>>
> >>> Stefan Hajnoczi gmail.com> writ
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Richard Davies wrote:
> > The host in question has 128GB RAM and dual AMD Opteron 6128 (16 cores
> > total). It is running kernel 3.5.1 and qemu-kvm 1.1.1.
> >
> > In this morning's test, we have 3 guests, all booting Windows with 40GB RAM
> > and 8 cores each (we have seen smal
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 05:36:26PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 22:12 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:31:14PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 11:53 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 13,
On 08/17/2012 03:36 PM, Richard Davies wrote:
> Hi Avi,
>
> Thanks to you and several others for offering help. We will work with Avi at
> first, but are grateful for all the other offers of help. We have a number
> of other qemu-related projects which we'd be interested in getting done, and
> wil
27 matches
Mail list logo
