A polite ping for comments on this version, thanks!
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:16 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> Last Branch Recording (LBR) is a performance monitor unit (PMU) feature on
> Intel CPUs that captures branch related info. This patch series enables this
> feature to KVM guests.
>
> Each
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> /*
> * balloon_page_alloc - allocates a new page for insertion into the balloon
> - * page list.
> + * page list.
> *
> - * Driver must call it to properly allocate a new enlisted balloon
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 7:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> Wei, others,
>
> ATM virtio_balloon_shrinker_scan will only get registered when deflate on
> oom feature bit is set.
>
> Not sure whether that's intentional.
Yes, we wanted to follow the old oom behavior, which allows the oom
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:41 PM, Hansen, Dave wrote:
> Where is the page allocator integration? The set you linked to has 5 patches,
> but only 4 were merged. This one is missing:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/961038/
For some reason, we used the regular page allocation
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 6:01 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> And how to preload without locking?
The memory is preload per-CPU. It's usually called outside the lock.
Best,
Wei
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 5:43 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Yes indeed, that is the important bit. They must not be put pack to the
> buddy before they have been processed by the hypervisor. But as the pages
> are not in the buddy, no one allocating a page will stumble over such a page
>
On Friday, February 15, 2019 9:50 AM, Like Xu wrote:
> To: Wang, Wei W ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; pbonz...@redhat.com; a...@linux.intel.com;
> pet...@infradead.org
> Cc: Liang, Kan ; mi...@redhat.com;
> rkrc...@redhat.com; Xu, Like ; ja...@google.c
On Friday, February 15, 2019 12:32 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > +static void intel_pmu_get_global_status(struct kvm_pmu *pmu,
> > + struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > +{
> > + u64 guest_debugctl, freeze_lbr_bits =
> DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI |
> > +
On Friday, February 15, 2019 12:26 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h index 9de8780..ec97a70 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > @@ -372,7 +372,8 @@ struct
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:19 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> If you have to resize/alloc/coordinate who will report, you will need locking.
> Especially, I doubt that there is an atomic xbitmap (prove me wrong :) ).
Yes, we need change xbitmap to support it.
Just thought of another
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:07 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> Once the host free the pages. All the isolated pages are returned back
> to the buddy. (This is implemented in hyperlist_ready())
This actually has the same issue: the isolated pages have to wait to return to
the buddy
after
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:19 AM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> The following patch-set proposes an efficient mechanism for handing freed
> memory between the guest and the host. It enables the guests with no page
> cache to rapidly free and reclaims memory to and from the host respectively.
>
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 5:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Global means all VCPUs will be competing potentially for a single lock when
> freeing/allocating a page, no? What if you have 64VCPUs allocating/freeing
> memory like crazy?
I think the key point is that the 64 vcpus won't
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:19 AM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> The following patch-set proposes an efficient mechanism for handing freed
> memory between the guest and the host. It enables the guests with no page
> cache to rapidly free and reclaims memory to and from the host respectively.
>
On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:54 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:03 AM Wei Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 01/03/2019 11:34 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > Fast forward to, say, 2021. You're decommissioning all Broadwell
> > > servers in your data center. You have to migrate the running VMs
On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > struct virtio_balloon {
> > struct virtio_device *vdev;
> > struct virtqueue *inflate_vq, *deflate_vq, *stats_vq, *free_page_vq;
> > @@ -77,6 +81,8 @@ struct virtio_balloon {
> > /* Prevent updating balloon when it is
On Sunday, December 30, 2018 2:06 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
> I guess you are the first one trying to read virtio config from within
> interrupt
> context. AFAICT this never worked.
I'm not sure about "never worked". It seems to work well with virtio-pci.
But looking forward to hearing a solid
On Friday, December 28, 2018 4:53 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Actually forgot one case.
>
> In Arch Perfmon v4 the LBR freezing is also controlled through a
> GLOBAL_CTRL bit.
> I didn't see any code handling that bit?
That GLOBAL_STATUS.LBR_FRZ bit hasn't been supported yet. I'll add that, thanks.
On Friday, December 28, 2018 3:57 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 28.12.2018 03:26, Wei Wang wrote:
> > Some vqs don't need to be allocated when the related feature bits are
> > disabled. Callers notice the vq allocation layer by setting the
> > related names[i] to be NULL.
> >
> > This
On Monday, November 5, 2018 8:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The answer for PEBS is really simple; PEBS does not virtualize (Andi tried and
> can tell you why; IIRC it has something to do with how the hardware asks for
> a Linear Address instead of a Physical Address). So the problem will not
>
On Monday, November 5, 2018 8:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The answer for PEBS is really simple; PEBS does not virtualize (Andi tried and
> can tell you why; IIRC it has something to do with how the hardware asks for
> a Linear Address instead of a Physical Address). So the problem will not
>
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 8:41 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> Here is the plan I have in mind:
> #1 Creates a host perf event on the guest's first bit-setting to
> MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL; Meanwhile, disable the intercept of guest
> access to this perf counter related MSRs (i.e. config_base and
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 8:41 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> Here is the plan I have in mind:
> #1 Creates a host perf event on the guest's first bit-setting to
> MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL; Meanwhile, disable the intercept of guest
> access to this perf counter related MSRs (i.e. config_base and
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 12:31 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 4. Results
> > - Without this optimization, the guest pmi handling time is
> > ~450 ns, and the max sampling rate is reduced to 250.
> > - With this optimization, the guest pmi handling time is ~9000 ns
> > (i.e.
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 12:31 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 4. Results
> > - Without this optimization, the guest pmi handling time is
> > ~450 ns, and the max sampling rate is reduced to 250.
> > - With this optimization, the guest pmi handling time is ~9000 ns
> > (i.e.
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 8:08 PM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > +static bool guest_access_lbr_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > +struct msr_data *msr_info,
> > +bool set)
> > +{
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + if
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 8:08 PM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > +static bool guest_access_lbr_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > +struct msr_data *msr_info,
> > +bool set)
> > +{
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + if
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 8:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 06:05:58PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> How do you deal with that situation, where the LBR is in use by a host event?
I guess you were referring to this use case: "perf record -b
qemu-system-x86_64..", where the
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 8:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 06:05:58PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> How do you deal with that situation, where the LBR is in use by a host event?
I guess you were referring to this use case: "perf record -b
qemu-system-x86_64..", where the
On Friday, September 21, 2018 12:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:30:35AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +int intel_pmu_enable_save_guest_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > > + struct perf_event *event;
> > > + struct
On Friday, September 21, 2018 12:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:30:35AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +int intel_pmu_enable_save_guest_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > > + struct perf_event *event;
> > > + struct
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 11:31 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > +int intel_pmu_enable_save_guest_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > + struct perf_event *event;
> > + struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> > + .type = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> > +
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 11:31 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > +int intel_pmu_enable_save_guest_lbr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > + struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > + struct perf_event *event;
> > + struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> > + .type = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> > +
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 4:05 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > How would you realize the function of saving/restoring the lbr stack on the
> host?
> >
> > Here, we create a perf event on the host (please see
> guest_lbr_event_create on patch 7), which essentially satisfies all the
> conditions
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 4:05 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > How would you realize the function of saving/restoring the lbr stack on the
> host?
> >
> > Here, we create a perf event on the host (please see
> guest_lbr_event_create on patch 7), which essentially satisfies all the
> conditions
On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:37 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 4:28 PM Wei Wang wrote:
> > This patch adds support to KVM to save/restore the lbr stack on vCPU
> > context switching.
> >
> > When the guest sets the ACTIVE bit of MSR_KVM_PV_LBR_CTRL, a perf
> > event is created
On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:37 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 4:28 PM Wei Wang wrote:
> > This patch adds support to KVM to save/restore the lbr stack on vCPU
> > context switching.
> >
> > When the guest sets the ACTIVE bit of MSR_KVM_PV_LBR_CTRL, a perf
> > event is created
On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This could achieve the above #1, but how would it solve #2 above? That
> > is, after the guest uses the lbr feature for a while, the lbr stack
> > has been passed through, then the guest doesn't use lbr any more, but
> > the vCPU will
On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This could achieve the above #1, but how would it solve #2 above? That
> > is, after the guest uses the lbr feature for a while, the lbr stack
> > has been passed through, then the guest doesn't use lbr any more, but
> > the vCPU will
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 7:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/05/2018 04:03, Liu, Jingqi wrote:
> > Hi Paolo,
> > Thanks.
> > Will you help to modify the Signed-off-by chain ?
> > Or do I need to submit the second version after modifying the Signed-off-
> by chain ?
>
> Can you explain your
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 7:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/05/2018 04:03, Liu, Jingqi wrote:
> > Hi Paolo,
> > Thanks.
> > Will you help to modify the Signed-off-by chain ?
> > Or do I need to submit the second version after modifying the Signed-off-
> by chain ?
>
> Can you explain your
On Friday, April 6, 2018 2:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:05:03AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > O
On Friday, April 6, 2018 2:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:47:28PM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:05:03AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > O
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:05:03AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:30:27AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:05:03AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:30:27AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:30:27AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:07:51AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > On
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:30:27AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:07:51AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > On
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:07:51AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/04/2018 02:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:10:03AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > +static int add_one_sg(struct virtqueue *vq,
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:07:51AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/04/2018 02:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:10:03AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > +static int add_one_sg(struct virtqueue *vq,
On Monday, March 26, 2018 10:40 AM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v29 3/4] mm/page_poison: expose page_poisoning_enabled
> to kernel modules
>
> In some usages, e.g. virtio-balloon, a kernel module needs to know if page
> poisoning is in use. This patch exposes the page_po
On Monday, March 26, 2018 10:40 AM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v29 3/4] mm/page_poison: expose page_poisoning_enabled
> to kernel modules
>
> In some usages, e.g. virtio-balloon, a kernel module needs to know if page
> poisoning is in use. This patch exposes the page_po
On Friday, January 26, 2018 11:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:29:15AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 01/25/2018 09:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:42:41PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > This patch adds support to walk through the free
On Friday, January 26, 2018 11:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:29:15AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 01/25/2018 09:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:42:41PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > This patch adds support to walk through the free
On Saturday, January 27, 2018 5:44 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:00:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:29:15AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On 01/25/2018 09:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:42:41PM
On Saturday, January 27, 2018 5:44 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:00:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:29:15AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On 01/25/2018 09:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:42:41PM
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:34:36PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 12/19/2017 10:05 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > I think xb_find_set() has a bug in !node path.
> >
> > I think we can probably remove the "!node" path for now. It would
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:34:36PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 12/19/2017 10:05 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > I think xb_find_set() has a bug in !node path.
> >
> > I think we can probably remove the "!node" path for now. It would
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 3:22 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:49:15AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Here's the API I'm looking at right now. The user need take no lock;
> > the locking (spinlock) is handled internally to the implementation.
Another place I saw
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 3:22 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:49:15AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Here's the API I'm looking at right now. The user need take no lock;
> > the locking (spinlock) is handled internally to the implementation.
Another place I saw
> -Original Message-
> From: Tetsuo Handa [mailto:penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 6:22 PM
> To: Wang, Wei W <wei.w.w...@intel.com>; wi...@infradead.org
> Cc: virtio-...@lists.oasis-open.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; qem
> -Original Message-
> From: Tetsuo Handa [mailto:penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 6:22 PM
> To: Wang, Wei W ; wi...@infradead.org
> Cc: virtio-...@lists.oasis-open.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; qemu-
> de...@nongn
On Friday, December 1, 2017 9:02 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 11/30/2017 06:34 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Wei Wang wrote:
> > >> + * @start: the start of the bit range, inclusive
> > >> + * @end: the end of the bit range, inclusive
> > >> + *
> > >> + * This function is used
On Friday, December 1, 2017 9:02 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 11/30/2017 06:34 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Wei Wang wrote:
> > >> + * @start: the start of the bit range, inclusive
> > >> + * @end: the end of the bit range, inclusive
> > >> + *
> > >> + * This function is used
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:36 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static inline int xb_set_page(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > + struct page *page,
> > + unsigned long *pfn_min,
> > + unsigned long
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:36 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static inline int xb_set_page(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > + struct page *page,
> > + unsigned long *pfn_min,
> > + unsigned long
On Friday, November 17, 2017 8:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:35:03PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 11/16/2017 09:27 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On 11/16/2017 04:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:13:06PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > >
On Friday, November 17, 2017 8:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:35:03PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 11/16/2017 09:27 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On 11/16/2017 04:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:13:06PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > >
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 11:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05:54PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static void ctrlq_send_cmd(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > + struct virtio_balloon_ctrlq_cmd *cmd,
> > + bool inbuf)
> > +{
> > +
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 11:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05:54PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static void ctrlq_send_cmd(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > + struct virtio_balloon_ctrlq_cmd *cmd,
> > + bool inbuf)
> > +{
> > +
On Monday, October 2, 2017 12:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05:52PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static int send_balloon_page_sg(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > +struct virtqueue *vq,
> > +void *addr,
> > +
On Monday, October 2, 2017 12:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05:52PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static int send_balloon_page_sg(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > +struct virtqueue *vq,
> > +void *addr,
> > +
On Monday, September 11, 2017 9:27 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:08:30PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * xb_zero - zero a range of bits in the xbitmap
> > + * @xb: the xbitmap that the bits reside in
> > + * @start: the start of the range, inclusive
> > + *
On Monday, September 11, 2017 9:27 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:08:30PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * xb_zero - zero a range of bits in the xbitmap
> > + * @xb: the xbitmap that the bits reside in
> > + * @start: the start of the range, inclusive
> > + *
Ping for comments if possible. Thanks.
On Monday, August 28, 2017 6:09 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> [PATCH v15 5/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_CTRL_VQ
>
> Add a new vq, ctrl_vq, to handle commands between the host and guest.
> With this feature, we will be able to have the c
Ping for comments if possible. Thanks.
On Monday, August 28, 2017 6:09 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> [PATCH v15 5/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_CTRL_VQ
>
> Add a new vq, ctrl_vq, to handle commands between the host and guest.
> With this feature, we will be able to have the c
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:36 PM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:42:52PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Changes to mm/balloon_compaction.c can easily break virtio, and virtio
> > is the only user of that interface. Add a line to MAINTAINERS so
> > whoever changes that
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:36 PM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:42:52PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Changes to mm/balloon_compaction.c can easily break virtio, and virtio
> > is the only user of that interface. Add a line to MAINTAINERS so
> > whoever changes that
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some numbers to
> justify a more subtle code.
> --
OK. Let's start with the simple implementation as you suggested.
Best,
Wei
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some numbers to
> justify a more subtle code.
> --
OK. Let's start with the simple implementation as you suggested.
Best,
Wei
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:38:17PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static void send_one_sg(struct virtio_balloon *vb, struct virtqueue *vq,
> > + void *addr, uint32_t size)
> > +{
> > + struct scatterlist sg;
> > +
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:38:17PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > +static void send_one_sg(struct virtio_balloon *vb, struct virtqueue *vq,
> > + void *addr, uint32_t size)
> > +{
> > + struct scatterlist sg;
> > +
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 12:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 08:47:08PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 07/29/2017 07:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:50:11AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > OK I thought this over. While we might need
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 12:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 08:47:08PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 07/29/2017 07:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:50:11AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > OK I thought this over. While we might need
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 19:44:23, Wei Wang wrote:
> [...]
> > I thought about it more. Probably we can use the callback function
> > with a little change like this:
> >
> > void walk_free_mem(void *opaque1, void (*visit)(void *opaque2,
> >
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 19:44:23, Wei Wang wrote:
> [...]
> > I thought about it more. Probably we can use the callback function
> > with a little change like this:
> >
> > void walk_free_mem(void *opaque1, void (*visit)(void *opaque2,
> >
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:42 PM, hal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 25-07-17 19:56:24, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 07/25/2017 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Tue 25-07-17 17:32:00, Wei Wang wrote:
> > >>On 07/24/2017 05:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>>On Wed 19-07-17 20:01:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> >
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:42 PM, hal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 25-07-17 19:56:24, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 07/25/2017 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Tue 25-07-17 17:32:00, Wei Wang wrote:
> > >>On 07/24/2017 05:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>>On Wed 19-07-17 20:01:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> >
On Friday, June 9, 2017 6:42 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> To: virtio-...@lists.oasis-open.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; qemu-
> de...@nongnu.org; virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org; m...@redhat.com;
> da...@redhat.com; Hansen, Da
On Friday, June 9, 2017 6:42 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> To: virtio-...@lists.oasis-open.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; qemu-
> de...@nongnu.org; virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org; m...@redhat.com;
> da...@redhat.com; Hansen, Dave ;
On 05/06/2017 06:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:33:44PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/14/2017 01:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:35:08PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > Add a new vq, miscq, to handle miscellaneous requests between
On 05/06/2017 06:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:33:44PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/14/2017 01:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:35:08PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > Add a new vq, miscq, to handle miscellaneous requests between
On 05/06/2017 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:50:12PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > Add a new feature, VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_PAGE_CHUNKS, which enables the
> > transfer of the ballooned (i.e. inflated/deflated) pages in chunks to
> > the host.
> >
> > The implementation of
On 05/06/2017 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:50:12PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > Add a new feature, VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_PAGE_CHUNKS, which enables the
> > transfer of the ballooned (i.e. inflated/deflated) pages in chunks to
> > the host.
> >
> > The implementation of
On 05/06/2017 06:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > Hi Michael, could you please
On 05/06/2017 06:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > Hi Michael, could you please
Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback?
On Monday, April 17, 2017 11:35 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 04/15/2017 05:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> >> On 04/14/2017 12:34 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017
Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback?
On Monday, April 17, 2017 11:35 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 04/15/2017 05:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 04:37:52PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> >> On 04/14/2017 12:34 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 12:31 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:31:36AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:09 PM Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > The implem
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 12:31 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:31:36AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:09 PM Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > The implem
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:31:36AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:09 PM Wei Wang wrote:
> > > The implementation of the current virtio-balloon is not very
> > > efficient,
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
