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
Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or
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?
At lease we didn't fall
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 difficult to predict.
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 we didn't fall across
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
alignment
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 and IA64
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:
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 switch
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 mechanism. So, we don't care
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?
Sorry
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 prefer this one, seems it is more direct and
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
-- 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 machine hang
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=detailatid=893831aid=1842160group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
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 size,
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 arch;
// common fields
}
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:
The nicer one:
struct kvm {
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
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 thinking
about kvm_vcpu
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 bytes in
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. For vcpu, it should be always
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
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
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
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 care about its
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 ioapic
code. This
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
Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it
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 configure
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 about
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=detailatid=893831aid=1841658group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
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, kvm_vcpu should use the same method.
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 related
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.
How about having
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 method.
--
Do not
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 difference of ioapic and iosapic
Since IA64 uses
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 their hardware structures
39 matches
Mail list logo
