Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of
problems could occur.
Good movement!
But,
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of
problems could
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Using the following patch, I'm getting really good results.
--- a/kernel/mmu.c2007-10-25 12:36:18.0 -0500
+++ b/kernel/mmu.c2007-10-25 17:09:55.0 -0500
@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@
if (r)
goto out;
r =
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:09:17 +0200
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
It's probably due to disabling NX (which is an unwanted side effect
of this). Java generates executable code, so it probably needs to
modify protection attributes. Maybe we're bad at this.
Can you
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
static int mmu_topup_memory_caches(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
int r;
kvm_mmu_free_some_pages(vcpu);
r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(vcpu-mmu_pte_chain_cache,
pte_chain_cache, 4);
if (r)
2007/10/26, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Gildas wrote:
2007/10/25, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with the
ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Thanks for the hint; I'll add that. I think Vista hits the tpr much
less frequently, so it can work well without the optimization.
Curious: How do u know ROM is mapped 0xf in Windows?
Eddie
kvm_get_sregs(kvm_context, env-cpu_index, sregs);
Avi Kivity wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of
problems could occur.
Good movement!
But,
Dong, Eddie wrote:
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of problems
could occur.
Good movement!
But, Vista won't work with
Thanks, that was quick.
On 10/25/07, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haydn Solomon wrote:
On compilation I get the following error.
../qemu-kvm.h:41: error: redefinition of 'kvm_log_tpr'
../qemu-kvm.h:41: error: previous definition of 'kvm_log_tpr' was here
make[2]: *** [i8259.o]
Avi Kivity wrote:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with the
ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The feature detects accesses
by the guest to the Task Priority Register (TPR) and patches them at
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with the
ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The feature detects
accesses by the guest to the Task Priority
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:39:33 -0400
Haydn Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, that was quick.
Finally, this (pre)release solved the long standing Java IE Plugin
lockup problem for me. Thanks a lot!
--
Jindrich Makovicka
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with
the ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The feature detects
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
localhost kernel: [ cut here ]
Message from syslogd@ at Thu Oct 25 13:59:27 2007 ...
localhost kernel: invalid opcode: [1] SMP
Installed windows xp with the following options
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
I guess I'll have to test that too.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
This SF.net email is
Avi Kivity wrote:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with the
ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The feature detects accesses
by the guest to the Task Priority Register (TPR) and patches them
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
This is a request for testing of an experimental kvm feature that
dramatically accelerates some Windows releases (when running with the
ACPI HAL, and especially with guest SMP). The feature detects accesses
by the guest to the Task Priority
Avi Kivity wrote:
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
I guess I'll have to test that too.
I hit it again, this time about half-way through the second stage
install of Windows XP (last time it was almost immediately). This
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
I guess I'll have to test that too.
I hit it again, this time about half-way through the second stage
install of Windows XP (last time it was
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
I guess I'll have to test that too.
I hit it again, this time about half-way through the second stage
install of Windows XP
Hey,
Avi Kivity wrote:
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I also had a problem installing windows xp. Got the following error
I guess I'll have to test that too.
I hit it again, this time about half-way through the second stage
install of Windows XP (last time it was almost
Anthony Liguori wrote:
static int mmu_topup_memory_caches(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
int r;
kvm_mmu_free_some_pages(vcpu);
r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(vcpu-mmu_pte_chain_cache,
pte_chain_cache, 4);
if (r)
goto out;
r =
I was able to complete an installation of windows xp using -smp 1. However,
I would like to test on an existing virtual machine with applications
already installed on it. Changing the HAL to ACPI should be enough for me to
test the windows optimization right feature right?
On 10/25/07, Avi Kivity
Haydn Solomon wrote:
I was able to complete an installation of windows xp using -smp 1.
However, I would like to test on an existing virtual machine with
applications already installed on it. Changing the HAL to ACPI should
be enough for me to test the windows optimization right feature
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
static int mmu_topup_memory_caches(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
int r;
kvm_mmu_free_some_pages(vcpu);
r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(vcpu-mmu_pte_chain_cache,
pte_chain_cache, 4);
if (r)
goto out;
r =
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
static int mmu_topup_memory_caches(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
int r;
kvm_mmu_free_some_pages(vcpu);
r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(vcpu-mmu_pte_chain_cache,
pte_chain_cache, 4);
if (r)
goto out;
r =
I've been running windows xp sp2 all day with acpi uniprocessor HAL and it's
noticeable much faster...blazing fast. I can imagine how much faster it will
be when -smp 2 works. Once it did hang up on me after installing an office
application and prompted for registration online. Other than that
BTW, is it wise to enable this by default for all guests?
Ignoring the
fact that we're modifying guest's memory without its knowledge, if a
guest unmaps the VA mappings for the BIOS then all sorts of problems
could occur.
Good movement!
But, Vista won't work with patching. The memory
31 matches
Mail list logo
