Am 12.09.2013 um 20:31 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt
:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 10:17 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
>> Aneesh and I are currently investigating an alternative approach,
>> which is much more like the x86 way of doing things. We are looking
>> at splitting the code into three
Am 12.09.2013 um 19:17 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:56:11PM -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 05.08.2013, at 23:26, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>>
>>> This makes it possible to have both PR and HV guests running
>>> concurrently on one machine, by deferring the decision
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 10:17 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Aneesh and I are currently investigating an alternative approach,
> which is much more like the x86 way of doing things. We are looking
> at splitting the code into three modules: a kvm_pr.ko module with the
> PR-specific bits, a kvm_hv.k
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:56:11PM -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.08.2013, at 23:26, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > This makes it possible to have both PR and HV guests running
> > concurrently on one machine, by deferring the decision about which type
> > of KVM to use for each guest until
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:01:37PM -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.08.2013, at 23:27, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > Currently we request write access to all pages that get mapped into the
> > guest, even if the guest is only loading from the page. This reduces
> > the effectiveness of KSM b
On 05.08.2013, at 23:27, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Currently we request write access to all pages that get mapped into the
> guest, even if the guest is only loading from the page. This reduces
> the effectiveness of KSM because it means that we unshare every page we
> access. Also, we always set
On 05.08.2013, at 23:26, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> This makes it possible to have both PR and HV guests running
> concurrently on one machine, by deferring the decision about which type
> of KVM to use for each guest until it either enables the PAPR capability
> or runs a vcpu. (Of course, this is
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:48 -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12.09.2013, at 16:45, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:23 -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 12.09.2013, at 13:10, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:18 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> an
On 12.09.2013, at 16:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:23 -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 12.09.2013, at 13:10, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:18 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
and device disabling is not a standard like PCI. Do you think that we
>
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:23 -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12.09.2013, at 13:10, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:18 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >> and device disabling is not a standard like PCI. Do you think that we
> >> might need to do some
> >> device specific ha
On 12.09.2013, at 13:10, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:18 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:45 PM
>>> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
>>> Cc: Wood S
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:18 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:45 PM
> > To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:45 PM
> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777; 'Peter
> Maydell'; 'Santosh Shukla'; 'Alexander Graf'; 'Antonios Mo
13 matches
Mail list logo
