Greg KH writes:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Matt Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:33:15AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:24:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> > > On 07/22/2013 10:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Many Xen-based cloud provi
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:33:15AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:24:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2013 10:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, in any virtualized environment
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:33:15AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:24:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/22/2013 10:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, in any virtualized environment the hypervisor can do a better job
> > >>> for things like kdump, simp
On 07/22/2013 11:33 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> I don't care about kdump, I care about kexec on domU for people who are
> running on cloud providers with old versions of Xen so that they can
> control what kernel they can boot, when they want to boot it. If kdump
> works as well, that's just a bonus,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:24:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 10:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Also, in any virtualized environment the hypervisor can do a better job
> >>> for things like kdump, simply because it can provide two things that are
> >>> otherwise hard
On 07/22/2013 10:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, in any virtualized environment the hypervisor can do a better job
>>> for things like kdump, simply because it can provide two things that are
>>> otherwise hard to do:
>>>
>>> 1. a known-good system state;
>>> 2. a known-clean kdump im
Daniel Kiper writes:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 01:58:05PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 12:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The errors that the kexec tools seem to run into is finding the memory
>> >>> to place the new kernel into, is that just an issue that PV guests
>> >>> are
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 01:58:05PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 12:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>
> >>> The errors that the kexec tools seem to run into is finding the memory
> >>> to place the new kernel into, is that just an issue that PV guests
> >>> aren't given enough kernel memory
On 07/19/2013 12:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> The errors that the kexec tools seem to run into is finding the memory
>>> to place the new kernel into, is that just an issue that PV guests
>>> aren't given enough kernel memory in which to replicate themselves from
>>> dom0?
>>
>> There are a lot of
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:12:43AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:18:19PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > support is "easy" after your patches go in, is that because Dom0 needs
> > > > to support this, or is it
On Fri, Jul 19, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Olaf, you wouldn't have any time to look at this some more now
> that Xen 4.3 is out?
Currently no time to continue work on kexec for PVonHVM, sorry.
Olaf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:12:43AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:18:19PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > support is "easy" after your patches go in, is that because Dom0 needs
> > > to support this, or is it something specific to only domU?
> >
> > In case of domU we should co
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 07:58:40AM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > - PV guests: there is no support for kexec at this time;
> > Once I wrote an implementatation for that type of guests
> > for one company but according to our agree
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> - PV guests: there is no support for kexec at this time;
> Once I wrote an implementatation for that type of guests
> for one company but according to our agreement I could not
> publish this code; However, I could use it as a ba
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:18:19PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > support is "easy" after your patches go in, is that because Dom0 needs
> > to support this, or is it something specific to only domU?
>
> In case of domU we should consider following cases:
> - PV guests: there is no support for k
Hey Daniel,
Thank you for the nice summary.
> - PVonHVM guests: IIRC, there were some issues with PV
> drivers but they were fixed some time ago by patches
> posted by Olaf Hering,
Which had to be reverted b/c they caused regressions with
32-bit guests during migration. But Greg if you
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:06:03PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was messing around with kexec and it seems to work just fine on KVM,
> but for Xen domU images, it doesn't work at all. Daniel, I saw some
> patches from you back in September 2012 for adding this support for
> Dom0, but they
Hi all,
I was messing around with kexec and it seems to work just fine on KVM,
but for Xen domU images, it doesn't work at all. Daniel, I saw some
patches from you back in September 2012 for adding this support for
Dom0, but they don't seem to have gone into the kernel (but other
patches went int
18 matches
Mail list logo
