Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi Xiantao,
> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
> code
>
>
W
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
Hi Xiantao,
it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
code
>>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just
>>> the alignment?
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:18 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Well, I hate to say it, but the resulting code doesn't look too well
>>> (all the kvm_x86 variables), and it's entirely my fault as I
>>> recommended this approach. Not like it was diffic
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Xiantao,
>>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
>>> code
>>>
>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just
>> the alignment?
>>
> At lease
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>> Hi Xiantao,
>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
>> code
>
> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just
> the alignment?
At lease we didn't fall across the similar requirements about such
al
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:13 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] Clearing up the difference of ioapic and iosapic
>> Since IA64 uses iosapic, we want to merget it with current ioapic
>> code. This patch should make x86
Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:06:52AM -0800, SourceForge.net wrote:
>
>> Bugs item #1840186, was opened at 2007-11-28 13:06
>> Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
>> You can respond by visiting:
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?fu
Jerone Young wrote:
> These patches add two things:
> libkvm skelton support
> powerpc tests (but missing kvmctl main.c)
>
>
Applied, thanks.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to
panic.
--
JiSheng Zhang wrote:
> once start kvm, the host machine hang
>
> cpu:AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
> kvm:kvm54
> host kernel version:2.6.23
> host kernel arch:i386
> guest:linux 32bit 2.6.23
> command to start kvm:qemu-system-x86_64 -hda linux.img
> the problem does not appear with the -no-kvm
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>> Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate
>>> kvm_vcpu, then?
>>>
>>
>> For evevy vm, we allocate a big chunk of memory for structure
>> allocation. For vcpu, it should be always 64k aligned through our
>> allocation mechanis
Jerone Young wrote:
> This patch is a continuation of the 7 patches sent earlier. This
> patch moves all x86 specific macros from include/linux/kvm.h to
> include/asm-x86/kvm.h.
>
>
Just noticed I'd dropped this old patch. Unfortunately kvm.git has
changed in this area. Care to re-spin?
Sorr
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>
>
The nicer one:
struct kvm {
struct kvm_arch arch;
// common fields
}
>>> I p
Hi, Avi
I think new archs for kvm doesn't need to care about kvm-abi
case in their code, since current abi is bigger than 10. But in current
libkvm.c, we can see that many abi-specific code in it. How to handle it
? Can we use __x86__ macro to make it sightless for other archs or
other goo
-- Forwarded message --
From: JiSheng Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2007-12-1 上午10:54
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] kvm54 hang on amd3000
To: Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Avi,
2007/11/30, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> JiSheng Zhang wrote:
> > once start kvm, the host machi
Bugs item #1842160, was opened at 2007-11-30 21:12
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=893831&aid=1842160&group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:43 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> These cannot use the same method, since we need to support both vmx and
> >> svm in the same binary. The arch specific members aren't the same
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> The nicer one:
>
> struct kvm {
> struct kvm_arch a
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 18:03 +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
> Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate
> kvm_vcpu, then?
>
>
For evevy vm, we allocate a
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Hello,
I have a few different Intel and AMD architectures where I could run
automated tests like these.
Is there any possibility of downloading a shared test-suite (disk images
+ automated scripts) for people like me (newbies wanting to contribute,
at least with our spare CPU cycles) to be abl
Actually this is was probably way overkill on moving these. I don't
think that this patch is really needed. So I say just leave it be. Since
they are macros they really cause no harm being where they are. It's
also easier to make sure that none collide on the numbers they use.
On Fri, 2007-11-30
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> The nicer one:
> >>
> >>struct kvm {
> >> struct kvm_arch arch;
> >> // common fields
> >>}
> >>
> >
> > I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same thin
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:50 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
> > Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> But you do need the vcpu cache, right?
> > I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx
> > and svm do with their hardware structures backing a vcpu state.
> > They're 512 b
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 18:03 +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
> >>> Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate
> >>> kvm_vcpu, then?
> >>>
> >>
> >> For evevy vm, we allocate a big chunk of memory for structure
> >> allocation. F
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> for qemu is probably not that much of a priority as they already have the
> patches, most of them committed and the bugs are only in their development
> tree which they don't release anyway, for kvm it is IMHO different since the
> bugs are on released code with
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:15:55AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> > The following patch series implements fixes to the IDE/ATAPI emulation
> > in qemu which are already committed upstream or proposed for inclusion;
> > including 2 serious regressions that result in
Avi Kivity wrote:
> But you do need the vcpu cache, right?
I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx
and svm do with their hardware structures backing a vcpu state.
They're 512 bytes in size, and need to start on a 512-byte boundary.
Sorry about my previous answer, I w
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
>
>> From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:13 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] Clearing
Carsten Otte wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just the
>> alignment?
> On s390, our nice colleagues in the hardware depeartment take care of
> caching vcpu related data on a phyical one. No need to do anything for
> us in that area, except
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:13 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Clearing up the difference of ioapic and iosapic
Since IA64 uses iosapic, we want to m
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Xiantao,
>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
>> co
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
>> Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate
>> kvm_vcpu, then?
>>
>
> For evevy vm, we allocate a big chunk of memory for structure
> allocation. For vcpu, it should be always 64k aligned through our
> allocation mechanism. So, we don't car
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:13 +0800
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Clearing up the difference of ioapic and iosapic
>>> Since IA64 uses iosapic, we want to merget it with current
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Xiantao,
>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86
>> specific code
>>
>>
Jerone Young wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> # Date 1196356414 21600
> # Node ID 6fa44248cb3ad7b8a75ea7c23ee935103547fee4
> # Parent eb2a8d4d818eb0b27feec303e028bd9944a28694
> Move CONFIG_X86 decleration to be x86 specific in configure script
>
> In the co
Carsten Otte wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> But you do need the vcpu cache, right?
> I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx
> and svm do with their hardware structures backing a vcpu state.
> They're 512 bytes in size, and need to start on a 512-byte boundary.
> Sorry a
Bugs item #1841658, was opened at 2007-11-30 04:11
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=893831&aid=1841658&group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> The nicer one:
>>>
>>>struct kvm {
>>> struct kvm_arch arch;
>>> // common fields
>>>}
>>>
>>
>> I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same
>> thinking about kvm_vcpu structure:)
>>
>
> I agree,
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just the
> alignment?
On s390, our nice colleagues in the hardware depeartment take care of
caching vcpu related data on a phyical one. No need to do anything for
us in that area, except enjoying the benefits. This
jack snodgrass wrote:
> First of all... is there a 'newbie' list? I don't want to send stupid
> questions to the wrong list
>
>
It's quite okay to send newbie questions here...
> is there a way to customize dnsmasq using a dnsmasq.conf file?
>
> This may be more Fedora 8 / libvirt / kvm re
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:57 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] Moving kvm_vcpu_cache to x86.c.
>> Moving kvm_vcpu_cache to x86.c, since only x86 platform will
>> use to align the memory area for fx_save.
>>
>
>
>
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
>>>
>> The nicer one:
>>
>>struct kvm {
>> struct kvm_arch arch;
>> // common fields
>>}
>>
>
> I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same thinking
> about kvm_vcpu structure:)
>
I agree, kvm_vcpu should use the same
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> From: Zhang Xiantao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:17:13 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Clearing up the differe
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:50 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Carsten Otte wrote:
>>
>>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
But you do need the vcpu cache, right?
>>> I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx
>>> and svm do with
44 matches
Mail list logo
