On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 20:59 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 12:08 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > So these MSRs can be modified by the hypervisor? Otherwise you'd cache
> > them in the guest with no hypervisor involvement, right? (just making
> > sure :)
>
> Ther
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 12:08 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> So these MSRs can be modified by the hypervisor? Otherwise you'd cache
> them in the guest with no hypervisor involvement, right? (just making
> sure :)
There's one MSR :-) Among others, it can be altered by the act of
taking an interru
On 10/02/2009 02:32 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:24 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
But writing those registers often has side effects. For example,
enabling interrupts should also inject an interrupt when one is
pending. On x86 we have the same problem with the TPR
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:24 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> But writing those registers often has side effects. For example,
> enabling interrupts should also inject an interrupt when one is
> pending. On x86 we have the same problem with the TPR on Windows XP, so
> we copy it to the guest on entr
> Yes, and I really don't want to overdo it. PV for mfmsr/mtmsr and
> mfspr/mtspr is really necessary. X86 simply has that in hardware.
Note to Avi: This is also because we aren't actually using the
virtualization feature of the processor, but instead running
the guest basically in user space.
On 30.09.2009, at 11:24, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/30/2009 11:11 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
The plan is to get qemu ppc64 guest support in a shape where it
can actually use the KVM support. As it is it's rather useless.
When we have that, a PV interface would be needed to get things
fast and t
On 09/30/2009 11:11 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
The plan is to get qemu ppc64 guest support in a shape where it can
actually use the KVM support. As it is it's rather useless.
When we have that, a PV interface would be needed to get things fast
and then the next thing on my list is the MMU notifie
On 30.09.2009, at 10:59, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/30/2009 10:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
What's the plan here? While not a requirement for merging, that's
one of the kvm points of strength and I'd like to see it supported
across the board.
I'm having a deja vu :-).
Will probably get
On 09/30/2009 10:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
What's the plan here? While not a requirement for merging, that's
one of the kvm points of strength and I'd like to see it supported
across the board.
I'm having a deja vu :-).
Will probably get one on every repost.
The plan is to get qemu
On 30.09.2009, at 10:42, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/29/2009 10:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
KVM for PowerPC only supports embedded cores at the moment.
While it makes sense to virtualize on small machines, it's even
more fun
to do so on big boxes. So I figured we need KVM for PowerPC64 as
we
On 09/29/2009 10:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
KVM for PowerPC only supports embedded cores at the moment.
While it makes sense to virtualize on small machines, it's even more fun
to do so on big boxes. So I figured we need KVM for PowerPC64 as well.
This patchset implements KVM support for Book
KVM for PowerPC only supports embedded cores at the moment.
While it makes sense to virtualize on small machines, it's even more fun
to do so on big boxes. So I figured we need KVM for PowerPC64 as well.
This patchset implements KVM support for Book3s_64 hosts and guest support
for Book3s_64 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
