On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 03:53:59PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any comments?
Did you verify possibilities listed at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/20/653 ?
If so, a summary in the patchset would be helpful.
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:13:43PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> > This series implements
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 03:53:59PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any comments?
As far as i can see, items 2 and 3 of
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/12/588
Have not been addressed.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/20/653 contains discussions on those
items.
2) Format of the interface for other
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 03:53:59PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
Hi,
Any comments?
As far as i can see, items 2 and 3 of
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/12/588
Have not been addressed.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/20/653 contains discussions on those
items.
2) Format of the interface for other
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 03:53:59PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
Hi,
Any comments?
Did you verify possibilities listed at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/20/653 ?
If so, a summary in the patchset would be helpful.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:13:43PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
This series implements a new
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:02:32PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:42:57 -0700
> Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > Please let me know if you can identify one of these as the culprit.
> > They're all very simple, but there's always a chance I've missed a hard
> > coding of slot
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:02:32PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:42:57 -0700
Alex Williamson alex.william...@redhat.com wrote:
Please let me know if you can identify one of these as the culprit.
They're all very simple, but there's always a chance I've missed a hard
; elapsed = ps->period - ktime_to_ns(remaining);
> - elapsed = mod_64(elapsed, ps->period);
>
> return elapsed;
> }
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
elapsed;
}
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:43:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 3.7.0 + irrelevant patches, I get this on boot. I've seen it on
> and off on earlier kernels, I think (although I'm not currently
> getting it on 3.5).
>
> [ 10.230054] PERCPU: allocation failed, size=304 align=32, alloc
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:39AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> v2: Update 02/10 to not check userspace_addr when slot is removed.
> Yoshikawa-san withdrew objection to increase slot_bitmap prior
> to his series to remove slot_bitmap.
>
> This series does away with any kind of
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:50:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>> program a timer interrupt and #GP?
> >>
> >> Could you please explain the detail?
> >
> > Before the instruction which writes continuously to the pagetable, arm
> > say lapic timer. #GP on the interrupt handler and test with
Raghavendra,
Please get this integrate through x86 tree (Ingo CC'ed).
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
> yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run queue length of
>
Raghavendra,
Please get this integrate through x86 tree (Ingo CC'ed).
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:50:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
program a timer interrupt and #GP?
Could you please explain the detail?
Before the instruction which writes continuously to the pagetable, arm
say lapic timer. #GP on the interrupt handler and test with failure.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:39AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
v2: Update 02/10 to not check userspace_addr when slot is removed.
Yoshikawa-san withdrew objection to increase slot_bitmap prior
to his series to remove slot_bitmap.
This series does away with any kind of complicated
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:43:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On 3.7.0 + irrelevant patches, I get this on boot. I've seen it on
and off on earlier kernels, I think (although I'm not currently
getting it on 3.5).
[ 10.230054] PERCPU: allocation failed, size=304 align=32, alloc
from
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:23:26AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:13:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> We have two issues in current code:
> >> - if target gfn is used as its page table,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:29:21AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 09:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> The current reexecute_instruction can not well detect the failed
> >> instructio
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:05:55AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 07:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:11:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> Changelog:
> >> There are some changes from Marcelo and Gleb's review, t
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:05:55AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/12/2012 07:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:11:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Changelog:
There are some changes from Marcelo and Gleb's review, thank you all!
- access indirect_shadow_pages
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:29:21AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
The current reexecute_instruction can not well detect the failed
instruction
emulation. It allows guest to retry
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:23:26AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/12/2012 08:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:13:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
We have two issues in current code:
- if target gfn is used as its page table, guest will refault then kvm
hcall support for e500 guests
PPC: Don't use hardcoded opcode for ePAPR hcall invocation
Marcelo Tosatti (22):
Merge branch 'for-upstream' of http://github.com/agraf/linux-2.6 into
queue
Merge remote-tracking branch 'master' into queue
Merge branch 'for-queue' of https://gith
for e500 guests
PPC: Don't use hardcoded opcode for ePAPR hcall invocation
Marcelo Tosatti (22):
Merge branch 'for-upstream' of http://github.com/agraf/linux-2.6 into
queue
Merge remote-tracking branch 'master' into queue
Merge branch 'for-queue' of https://github.com
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:45AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The API documentation states:
>
> When changing an existing slot, it may be moved in the guest
> physical memory space, or its flags may be modified.
>
> An "existing slot" requires a non-zero npages (memory_size).
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> The current reexecute_instruction can not well detect the failed instruction
> emulation. It allows guest to retry all the instructions except it accesses
> on error pfn
>
> For example, some cases are nested-write-protect - if the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:11:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Changelog:
> There are some changes from Marcelo and Gleb's review, thank you all!
> - access indirect_shadow_pages in the protection of mmu-lock
> - fix the issue when unhandleable instruction access on large page
> - add a new
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:12:20PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Then, no mmu specified code exists in the common function and drop two
> parameters in set_spte
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 47 ---
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:29:09PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:45AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The API documentation states:
> >
> > When changing an existing slot, it may be moved in the guest
> > physical mem
t; us to support between 28 and 56 typical devices per VM.
>
> Tested on x86_64, compiled on ia64, powerpc, and s390.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:13:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> We have two issues in current code:
> - if target gfn is used as its page table, guest will refault then kvm will
> use
> small page size to map it. We need two #PF to fix its shadow page table
>
> - sometimes, say a exception
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:11:34PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> This removes the sparse warning:
> arch/x86/kernel/crash.c:49:32: sparse: incompatible types in comparison
> expression (different address spaces)
>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanfei
> ---
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:11:34PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
This removes the sparse warning:
arch/x86/kernel/crash.c:49:32: sparse: incompatible types in comparison
expression (different address spaces)
Reported-by: kbuild test robot fengguang...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanfei
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:13:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
We have two issues in current code:
- if target gfn is used as its page table, guest will refault then kvm will
use
small page size to map it. We need two #PF to fix its shadow page table
- sometimes, say a exception is
, compiled on ia64, powerpc, and s390.
Thanks,
Alex
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:29:09PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:45AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
The API documentation states:
When changing an existing slot, it may be moved in the guest
physical memory space, or its flags may be modified
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:12:20PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Then, no mmu specified code exists in the common function and drop two
parameters in set_spte
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 47
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:11:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Changelog:
There are some changes from Marcelo and Gleb's review, thank you all!
- access indirect_shadow_pages in the protection of mmu-lock
- fix the issue when unhandleable instruction access on large page
- add a new test
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
The current reexecute_instruction can not well detect the failed instruction
emulation. It allows guest to retry all the instructions except it accesses
on error pfn
For example, some cases are nested-write-protect - if the page
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:32:45AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
The API documentation states:
When changing an existing slot, it may be moved in the guest
physical memory space, or its flags may be modified.
An existing slot requires a non-zero npages (memory_size). The only
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:40:56PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> This removes the sparse warning:
> arch/x86/kernel/crash.c:49:32: sparse: incompatible types in comparison
> expression (different address spaces)
>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanfei
> ---
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:44:59PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Typo for the next pointer means we're walking random data here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org [3.7]
> ---
>
> Not sure if this will make 3.7, so preemptively adding the stable flag
>
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:44:59PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
Typo for the next pointer means we're walking random data here.
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson alex.william...@redhat.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org [3.7]
---
Not sure if this will make 3.7, so preemptively adding the stable
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:40:56PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
This removes the sparse warning:
arch/x86/kernel/crash.c:49:32: sparse: incompatible types in comparison
expression (different address spaces)
Reported-by: kbuild test robot fengguang...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanfei
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Don't under
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:58:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since
> > > > that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since
> > > that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is
> > > sorted. We need to check both is the slot in bounds (EINVAL), but also
> > > is
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since
that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is
sorted. We need to check both is the slot in bounds (EINVAL), but also
is it
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:58:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since
that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is
sorted. We need
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:02:53PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 19:26 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:36PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > struct kvm_memory_slot is currently 52 bytes (LP64), not counting the
> &
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Memory slots are currently a fixed resource with a relatively small
> limit. When using PCI device assignment in a qemu guest it's fairly
> easy to exhaust the number of available slots. I posted patches
> exploring growing the
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:36PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> struct kvm_memory_slot is currently 52 bytes (LP64), not counting the
> arch data. On x86 this means the memslot array to support a tiny 32+3
> entries (user+private) is over 2k. We'd like to support more slots
> so that we can
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:24PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> This allows us to resize this structure and therefore the number of
> memslots as part of the RCU update.
Why is this necessary? "struct memslots" is updated, message above
conflicts with that.
If there is a reason, "id_to_index"
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:30PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> In order to make the memslots array grow on demand, move the private
> slots to the lower indexes of the array. The private slots are
> assumed likely to be in use, so if we didn't do this we'd end up
> allocating the full
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:17:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> There are two cases we need to adjust page size in set_spte:
> 1): the one is other vcpu creates new sp in the window between mapping_level()
> and acquiring mmu-lock.
> 2): the another case is the new sp is created by itself
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:17:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
There are two cases we need to adjust page size in set_spte:
1): the one is other vcpu creates new sp in the window between mapping_level()
and acquiring mmu-lock.
2): the another case is the new sp is created by itself
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:30PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
In order to make the memslots array grow on demand, move the private
slots to the lower indexes of the array. The private slots are
assumed likely to be in use, so if we didn't do this we'd end up
allocating the full memslots
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:24PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
This allows us to resize this structure and therefore the number of
memslots as part of the RCU update.
Why is this necessary? struct memslots is updated, message above
conflicts with that.
If there is a reason, id_to_index
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:36PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
struct kvm_memory_slot is currently 52 bytes (LP64), not counting the
arch data. On x86 this means the memslot array to support a tiny 32+3
entries (user+private) is over 2k. We'd like to support more slots
so that we can
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
Memory slots are currently a fixed resource with a relatively small
limit. When using PCI device assignment in a qemu guest it's fairly
easy to exhaust the number of available slots. I posted patches
exploring growing the
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:02:53PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 19:26 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:36PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
struct kvm_memory_slot is currently 52 bytes (LP64), not counting the
arch data. On x86 this means
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
>
> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
> completeness, forg
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:33:01PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> Thanks for your patience. I was reading your reply over and over again, i
> would
> like to argue it more :).
> Please see below.
>
> On 11/29/2012 08:21 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:33:01PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
Thanks for your patience. I was reading your reply over and over again, i
would
like to argue it more :).
Please see below.
On 11/29/2012 08:21 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/17
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness, forgive me :))
In moderate overcommits, we
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:36:43AM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> >>>Can you please write a succint but complete description of the method
> >>>so it can be verified?
> >>
> >>Sure.
> >>
> >>- Prerequisite
> >>1. the host TSC is synchronized and stable.
> >>2.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:54:14PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> vmcs->cpu indicates whether it exists on the target cpu, -1 means the vmcs
> does not exist on any vcpu
>
> If vcpu load vmcs with vmcs.cpu = -1, it can be directly added to cpu's percpu
> list. The list can be corrupted if the cpu
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:07:59PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Prior to memory slot sorting this loop compared all of the user memory
> slots for overlap with new entries. With memory slot sorting, we're
> just checking some number of entries in the array that may or may not
> be user slots.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:07:59PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
Prior to memory slot sorting this loop compared all of the user memory
slots for overlap with new entries. With memory slot sorting, we're
just checking some number of entries in the array that may or may not
be user slots.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:54:14PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
vmcs-cpu indicates whether it exists on the target cpu, -1 means the vmcs
does not exist on any vcpu
If vcpu load vmcs with vmcs.cpu = -1, it can be directly added to cpu's percpu
list. The list can be corrupted if the cpu
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:36:43AM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
Can you please write a succint but complete description of the method
so it can be verified?
Sure.
- Prerequisite
1. the host TSC is synchronized and stable.
2. kvm_write_tsc_offset events include previous
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:53:47PM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> (2012/11/27 8:16), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 08:05:10PM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
> >>>>>500h. event tsc_write tsc_offset=-3000
> >>>&
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:53:47PM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
(2012/11/27 8:16), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 08:05:10PM +0900, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
500h. event tsc_write tsc_offset=-3000
Then a guest trace containing events with a TSC timestamp
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:16:50AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 06:40 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > On 11/29/2012 05:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>> On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gle
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:54:14PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> vmcs->cpu indicates whether it exists on the target cpu, -1 means the vmcs
> does not exist on any vcpu
>
> If vcpu load vmcs with vmcs.cpu = -1, it can be directly added to cpu's percpu
> list. The list can be corrupted if the cpu
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:53:15PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> In loaded_vmcs_clear, loaded_vmcs->cpu is the fist parameter passed to
> smp_call_function_single, if the target cpu is downing (doing cpu hot remove),
> loaded_vmcs->cpu can become -1 then -1 is passed to smp_call_function_single
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:40:51AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 05:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2012 06:41 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
&
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55:26PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 10:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:15:13AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2012 07:32 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:13:11
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:27:38PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 11:00 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> map gfn 4? See corrected step 7 above.
> >>
> >> Ah, this is a real bug, and unfortunately, it exists in current
> >> code. I will make a separ
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:27:38PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/18/2012 11:00 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
map gfn 4? See corrected step 7 above.
Ah, this is a real bug, and unfortunately, it exists in current
code. I will make a separate patchset to fix it. Thank you, Marcelo
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55:26PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/28/2012 10:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:15:13AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/28/2012 07:32 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/27/2012 06:41 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
-return false;
+again:
+page_fault_count
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:40:51AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:53:15PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
In loaded_vmcs_clear, loaded_vmcs-cpu is the fist parameter passed to
smp_call_function_single, if the target cpu is downing (doing cpu hot remove),
loaded_vmcs-cpu can become -1 then -1 is passed to smp_call_function_single
It
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:54:14PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
vmcs-cpu indicates whether it exists on the target cpu, -1 means the vmcs
does not exist on any vcpu
If vcpu load vmcs with vmcs.cpu = -1, it can be directly added to cpu's percpu
list. The list can be corrupted if the cpu
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:16:50AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/29/2012 06:40 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/28/2012 10:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T
>
> yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
> run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
> yield_to
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:24:42PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
> > In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
> > capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
> > being r
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> +static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long
> >> cr2)
> >> {
> >> - gpa_t gpa;
> >> + gpa_t gpa = cr2;
> >>pfn_t pfn;
> >>
> >> - if (tdp_enabled)
> >> + if
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 06:41 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> >>
> >> - return false;
> >> +again:
> >> + page_fault_count = ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu->kvm->arch.page_fault_count);
> >&g
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
> In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
> capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
> being reported in accounting tools such as top or vmstat.
The definition of stolen time is 'time during
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
being reported in accounting tools such as top or vmstat.
The definition of stolen time is 'time during
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/27/2012 06:41 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
- return false;
+again:
+ page_fault_count = ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu-kvm-arch.page_fault_count);
+
+ /*
+ * if emulation was due to access to shadowed page table
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
+static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long
cr2)
{
- gpa_t gpa;
+ gpa_t gpa = cr2;
pfn_t pfn;
- if (tdp_enabled)
+ if (!ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu-kvm-arch.indirect_shadow_pages))
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:24:42PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
being reported in accounting tools
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:49:36PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 03:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >> Gleb, Marcelo: are you going to apply this or would you prefer I took it
> >> in x86/urgent?
> >>
> >>-hpa
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:48:50PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 11:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
> >> From: "H. Peter Anvin"
> >>
> >> In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use "+a" and "+d" which are input/output
> >> constraints, and
1301 - 1400 of 2527 matches
Mail list logo
