On 7/17/07, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luca wrote:
So, would it be correct to revert the patch enabling the ports, assuming
people use the kvm-supplied bios?
I think so.
Please confirm that the original test case (I think it was the FC7
installer?) works with the kvm bios.
Luca wrote:
So, would it be correct to revert the patch enabling the ports, assuming
people use the kvm-supplied bios?
I think so.
Please confirm that the original test case (I think it was the FC7
installer?) works with the kvm bios.
Where does the BIOS come from? Latest Bochs?
Yes.
Luca wrote:
On 7/15/07, Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/07, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff -ru kvm-fast-dmesg.txt kvm-slow-dmesg.txt
Linux version 2.6.22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 (Ubuntu
4.1.2-0ubuntu4)) #13
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:27 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Dave, can you compare the output of hdparm -v /dev/hda? Maybe more
clues there.
slow:
qemu:~# hdparm -v /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount= 16 (on)
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq= 0 (off)
using_dma= 1 (on)
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 21:27 +0200, Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff -ru kvm-fast-dmesg.txt kvm-slow-dmesg.txt
Linux version 2.6.22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 (Ubuntu
4.1.2-0ubuntu4)) #13 Wed Jul 11 15:27:01 PDT 2007
Is this a vanilla
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 23:22 +0200, Luca wrote:
Can you re-test KVM 27 with it's BIOS (i.e. use something like -L
~/src/kvm-27/qemu/pc-bios)?
Doing that does appear to make it behave like kvm-28. DMA enabled, and
slow I/O:
qemu:~# hdparm -v /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount= 16 (on)
On 7/15/07, Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/07, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff -ru kvm-fast-dmesg.txt kvm-slow-dmesg.txt
Linux version 2.6.22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 (Ubuntu
4.1.2-0ubuntu4)) #13 Wed Jul 11 15:27:01 PDT 2007
Is this a vanilla 2.6.22? 32
On 7/15/07, Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/07, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff -ru kvm-fast-dmesg.txt kvm-slow-dmesg.txt
Linux version 2.6.22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 (Ubuntu
4.1.2-0ubuntu4)) #13 Wed Jul 11
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Dave, can you diff the guest dmesg with kvm-27 and kvm-28 userspace?
Maybe that will tell us something.
Here's kvm-27 and kvm-27+55a3212bc2...:
diff -ru kvm-fast-dmesg.txt kvm-slow-dmesg.txt
Linux version 2.6.22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:37 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Can you confirm it by backing out that one patch?
Do you know the git commit id by chance?
-- Dave
commit 55a3212bc2f5ecddcd4c5cdf2bfb37ad71e45ff2
Author: Luca Tettamanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jun
On 7/13/07, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:37 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Can you confirm it by backing out that one patch?
Do you know the git commit id by chance?
-- Dave
commit 55a3212bc2f5ecddcd4c5cdf2bfb37ad71e45ff2
Author:
Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:37 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Can you confirm it by backing out that one patch?
Do you know the git commit id by chance?
-- Dave
commit
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:41 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I tested FC6 i386 about found no difference with or without the patch.
Dave, can you diff the guest dmesg with kvm-27 and kvm-28 userspace?
Maybe that will tell us something.
I can say this: It would seem that the IDE enable bits
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:41 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I tested FC6 i386 about found no difference with or without the patch.
Dave, can you diff the guest dmesg with kvm-27 and kvm-28 userspace?
Maybe that will tell us something.
I
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:46 +0200, Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify: you are suggesting that the old IDE driver used to
see that the controller was disabled and reprogrammed it by itself
(fast mode); now it sees it's enabled and leaves whatever
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:46 +0200, Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify: you are suggesting that the old IDE driver used to
see that the controller was disabled and reprogrammed it by itself
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 17:39 +0200, Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:46 +0200, Luca wrote:
On 7/13/07, Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify: you are suggesting that the old IDE driver used to
see that the
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 17:39 +0200, Luca wrote:
Dave, can you confirm that backing out my patch fixes your speed
issue?
Sure, I'll check current git with and without your patch.
I've reproduced that _applying_ it to kvm-27 creates the slowdown, but
I'll double-check that backing it out
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:41 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I tested FC6 i386 about found no difference with or without the patch.
I've git bisected down the the same patch that you pasted above. I've
also tried just applying that single patch to kvm-27 and reproduced
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:37 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Can you confirm it by backing out that one patch?
Do you know the git commit id by chance?
-- Dave
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 08:44 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
What does 'top' on the host show in both cases?
On the fast one (kvm-27) I just see the dd as a flash in top. It
doesn't stay for long. The VM isn't very responsive during the dd.
On the slow (kvm-28) one, I see the dd in top creeping
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 08:44 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
What does 'top' on the host show in both cases?
On the fast one (kvm-27) I just see the dd as a flash in top. It
doesn't stay for long. The VM isn't very responsive during the dd.
On the slow (kvm-28) one, I
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 11:14 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Dave Hansen wrote:
I've noticed that some of my tests run *MUCH* slower in kvm-28 than in
27. I'm sure that wall time is pretty wonky in the guests, but it is
much slower in real-world time as well.
Here's a little test to create a
Dave Hansen wrote:
I've noticed that some of my tests run *MUCH* slower in kvm-28 than in
27. I'm sure that wall time is pretty wonky in the guests, but it is
much slower in real-world time as well.
Here's a little test to create a 32MB zeroed file with dd. Here it is
from kvm-27 (this
24 matches
Mail list logo
