Hi,
I'm trying to figure out how a guest OS can get a monotonic clock using
KVM's paravirtual clock.
At first, I thought that the clock I get using KVM_SYSTEM_TIME is a
monotonic clock, based on the host's monotonic clock.
But I'm no longer sure this is actually done correctly:
1. What happens
Seems that commit 210b1607012cc9034841a393e0591b2c86d9e26c
(KVM: s390: Removed SIE_INTERCEPT_UCONTROL) lost a hunk when we
reworked our patch queue to rework the async_fp code. We now
ignore faults on the sie instruction (guest accesses non-existing
memory) instead of sending a fault into the
Paolo,
here is a fix for a regression that is in current kvm/next, which is
targetted for 3.14. Please apply
Christian Borntraeger (1):
KVM: s390: Fix memory access error detection
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c |4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
--
1.7.9.5
The following changes since
Il 20/01/2014 12:54, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
Paolo,
here is a fix for a regression that is in current kvm/next, which is
targetted for 3.14. Please apply
Christian Borntraeger (1):
KVM: s390: Fix memory access error detection
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c |4
1 file
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:54:03 +0100
Christian Borntraeger borntrae...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Seems that commit 210b1607012cc9034841a393e0591b2c86d9e26c
(KVM: s390: Removed SIE_INTERCEPT_UCONTROL) lost a hunk when we
reworked our patch queue to rework the async_fp code. We now
ignore faults on the
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
In order to be able to detect the point where the guest enables
its MMU and caches, trap all the VM related system registers.
Once we see the guest enabling both the MMU and the caches, we
can go back to a saner mode of
Hi all,
I'm running into an issue that's causing my guests to crash while using
vm-channels. There is an assertion that's failing in qemu-char.c, that, when
it happens causes my guest to go down. The error can be seen in the host-side
logs.
Rather than being too wordy on-list, here's a
The original patch from Liu Jinsong restricted them to reset or full
state updates, but that's unnecessary (and wrong) since the BNDCFGS
MSR has no side effects.
Cc: Liu Jinsong jinsong@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
target-i386/kvm.c | 6 +++---
1 file
Hi Anup,
On 20/01/14 12:00, Anup Patel wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
In order to be able to detect the point where the guest enables
its MMU and caches, trap all the VM related system registers.
Once we see the guest enabling both the MMU
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out how a guest OS can get a monotonic clock using
KVM's paravirtual clock.
At first, I thought that the clock I get using KVM_SYSTEM_TIME is a
monotonic clock, based on the host's monotonic clock.
It
Il 20/01/2014 13:37, Wesley Holevinski ha scritto:
Hi all,
I'm running into an issue that's causing my guests to crash while
using vm-channels. There is an assertion that's failing in qemu-char.c,
that, when it happens causes my guest to go down. The error can be seen
in the host-side
On 18.01.2014, at 11:15, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 January 2014 07:32, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Am 18.01.2014 um 05:24 schrieb Christoffer Dall
christoffer.d...@linaro.org:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:52:57PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
Having thought a
On 17.01.2014, at 19:52, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 17 January 2014 17:53, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
Specifically, the KVM API says here's a uint8_t[] byte
array and a length, and the current QEMU code treats that
as this is a byte array written as
On 20 January 2014 14:20, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
I think I see the problem now. You're thinking about LE hosts, not LE guests.
I think the only really sensible options would be to
a) Always use a statically define target endianness (big for ppc)
b) Always use host endianness
Il 12/12/2013 12:09, Liu, Jinsong ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/12/2013 06:47, Liu, Jinsong ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/12/2013 09:31, Liu, Jinsong ha scritto:
Paolo, comments for version 2?
I think I commented that it's fine, I'm just waiting for a rebase
on top of the
You also aren't describing if doing anything specifically will cause the
crash.
Sorry, I've yet to narrow down the exact case that's causing it. Basically,
it's constant use of the vm-channel; I have a binary that will write to the
character device at an interval. If I leave it running with
(2014/01/20 22:33), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
If KVM_SYSTEM_TIME is not a correct way to get a monotonic paravirtual clock
from KVM, is there a correct way?
Inside a Linux guest? Can use sched_clock().
I would like to mention that
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:43:45 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:10:47 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
From: Luiz capitulino
On 10.01.2014, at 02:18, Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
Simplify the handling of lazy EE by going directly from fully-enabled
to hard-disabled. This replaces the lazy_irq_pending() check
(including its misplaced kvm_guest_exit() call).
As suggested by Tiejun Chen, move the
Hi Marc,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Anup,
On 20/01/14 12:00, Anup Patel wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
In order to be able to detect the point where the guest enables
its MMU and caches, trap
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013, that didn't get any reply.
Only
change is a trivial conflict on patch 7/7.
Question: which tree is the most appropriate to get this in? qom-cpu?
kvm?
This series simplifies
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:22:11PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.01.2014, at 19:52, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 17 January 2014 17:53, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
Specifically, the KVM API says here's a uint8_t[] byte
array and a length, and
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:36:56PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013, that didn't get any reply.
Only
change is a trivial conflict on patch 7/7.
Question: which tree is the most
Am 20.01.2014 21:39, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:36:56PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013, that didn't get any reply.
Only
change is a trivial conflict on
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:07:47PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 20.01.2014 21:39, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:36:56PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013,
On 15.01.2014, at 07:36, Liu ping fan kernelf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan kernelf...@gmail.com wrote:
This series is based on Aneesh's series [PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa
faults
On 10.01.2014, at 02:18, Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
Simplify the handling of lazy EE by going directly from fully-enabled
to hard-disabled. This replaces the lazy_irq_pending() check
(including its misplaced kvm_guest_exit() call).
As suggested by Tiejun Chen, move the
Liu ping fan kernelf...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan kernelf...@gmail.com wrote:
This series is based on Aneesh's series [PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa
faults support for ppc64
For this
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Liu ping fan kernelf...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan kernelf...@gmail.com wrote:
This series is based on
Liu ping fan kernelf...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Liu ping fan kernelf...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan
30 matches
Mail list logo
