On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 07:13 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > What is the distinction between kvm_regs and kvm_sregs? As far as I can
> > see, kvm_regs is only used when emulating IO, emulating MMIO, and
> > emulating CPUID, where guest GPRs are directly modified. kvm_sregs is
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which tree are you patching??
We crossed in the mail: you turfed out the paravirt.h cleanup patch it
applied to.
We have rolled the fixes one patch, and am testing...
Rusty.
-
Hi Guys,
As a git newbie, I cant really figure out how to peruse the tags and branches
of KVM. Can someone send me a hint or two? I currently have the linux+kvm
stuff pulled as per the Wiki and I can see the linux tags (e.g. 2.6.20), but
not much else.
Thanks!
-Greg
--
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which tree are you patching??
> -
It looks like its against the previously posted "Cleanup: rationalize
paravirt wrappers" patch.
J
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join Source
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:49:30 +1100
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rdmsr_safe() takes pointers. rdmsr() modifies its arguments. What a
> mess.
>
> Fix rdmsr_safe() with !CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff -r a7f78e8eacc8 include/asm-i386/
Folks --
I noticed (after a long sequence of experimentation) that an smp
change has been made to the bios to disable the generation of the MP
table in a uniprocessor environment:
# svn cat svn://kvm.qumranet.com/kvm/tags/public/17/qemu/pc-bios/
bios.diff | tail
+#ifdef BX_QEMU
+if (smp
Hi!
With respect to the Core Duo, this is the best release I've seen so far:
- FreeBSD 6.1: works.
- NetBSD 3.1: works.
- OpenSuse 10.2 (sans gfxmenu): works.
- Qemu-Puppy 2.01-3: works.
- Qemu-Puppy 2.13-1: works.
- Solaris 10.1: works.
- XP Pro: works.
Unfortunately, Knoppix (both 5.0 and 5.1.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:33:50PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >We agree that we should hide the monitor cpuid bit to the guest from the
> >kernel level. Allowing the guest to use mwait if its available on the
> >processor without proper virtualization would cause the processor
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:01:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Right. But it is possible for userspace to ena
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:01:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >>Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >>
> >>>Right. But it is possible for userspace to enable monitor bit for the
> >>>guest. Without virtualization of th
Kiselev, Sergey wrote:
> Resending as attachment...
>
Applied, thanks.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> Right. But it is possible for userspace to enable monitor bit for the
>>> guest. Without virtualization of these 2 instructions the guest would
>>> idle in the guest state after
Resending as attachment...
-Original Message-
From: Avi Kivity [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 March 2007 13:47
To: Kiselev, Sergey
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] Writing to MCG_STATUS register
Kiselev, Sergey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some older (~2.6.7) kernel
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >Right. But it is possible for userspace to enable monitor bit for the
> >guest. Without virtualization of these 2 instructions the guest would
> >idle in the guest state after calling mwait and prevent other proces
tarski wrote:
> hello everyone,
>
> I was just wondering how KVM schedules multiple Virtual machines (guest
> operating systems) running on top of it? If a thread/process blocks on a guest
> os does KVM block the whole virtual machine or are other threads/processes
> running on that parti
>
>hello everyone,
>
> I was just wondering how KVM schedules multiple Virtual machines
>(guest
>operating systems) running on top of it? If a thread/process blocks on
a
>guest
>os does KVM block the whole virtual machine or are other
threads/processes
>running on that particular guest given a
Kiselev, Sergey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some older (~2.6.7) kernels write MCG_STATUS register during kernel
> boot (mce_clear_all() function, called from mce_init()). It's not
> currently handled by kvm and will cause it to inject a GPF.
> Following patch adds a "nop" handler for this:
>
Your email
Hi,
Some older (~2.6.7) kernels write MCG_STATUS register during kernel boot
(mce_clear_all() function, called from mce_init()). It's not currently
handled by kvm and will cause it to inject a GPF.
Following patch adds a "nop" handler for this:
--- kvm-17/kernel/kvm_main.c.orig 2007-03-20
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:42:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> There is no danger for the host kernel but for the guest. If the
>>> userspace sets the monitor bit the guest will receive an #UD when trying
>>> to use it. And we don't want th
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:42:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >There is no danger for the host kernel but for the guest. If the
> >userspace sets the monitor bit the guest will receive an #UD when trying
> >to use it. And we don't want the guest to use it because it is not
> >
hello everyone,
I was just wondering how KVM schedules multiple Virtual machines (guest
operating systems) running on top of it? If a thread/process blocks on a guest
os does KVM block the whole virtual machine or are other threads/processes
running on that particular guest given a chanc
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> There is no danger for the host kernel but for the guest. If the
> userspace sets the monitor bit the guest will receive an #UD when trying
> to use it. And we don't want the guest to use it because it is not
> virtualized yet.
>
So, isn't a simpler fix not to set the moni
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:38:12AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >>Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >>
> >>>From: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
> >>>This patch forbids the guest to execute monitor/mwait instru
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:38:12AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> From: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> This patch forbids the guest to execute monitor/mwait instructions on
>>> SVM. This is necessary because the guest can execute the
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:38:12AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >From: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >This patch forbids the guest to execute monitor/mwait instructions on
> >SVM. This is necessary because the guest can execute these instructions
> >if they are availabl
25 matches
Mail list logo
