Not a full test, but reboot and kdump seem to work ok with KVM.
On 04/12/2018 09:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
> mutex, two parallel calls to
On 23.04.2018 12:42, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:26:02 +0200
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
>> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
>> mutex, two parallel
On 23.04.2018 12:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:33:13 +0200
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>> static void s390_ipl_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data)
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
>>> index 0570d0ad75..102f1ea7af 100644
>>> ---
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:33:13 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > static void s390_ipl_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data)
> > diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> > index 0570d0ad75..102f1ea7af 100644
> > --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> > +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> > @@
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:26:02 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
> mutex, two parallel calls to pause_all_vcpus() can be active at a time,
> static void s390_ipl_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data)
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> index 0570d0ad75..102f1ea7af 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> @@ -87,7 +87,17 @@ int s390_ipl_set_loadparm(uint8_t *loadparm);
> void
On 18.04.2018 16:08, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 12.04.2018 21:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
>> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
>> mutex, two parallel calls to pause_all_vcpus() can be active
On 12.04.2018 21:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
> mutex, two parallel calls to pause_all_vcpus() can be active at a time,
> resulting in a deadlock. (either
On 12/04/2018 21:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
> not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
> mutex, two parallel calls to pause_all_vcpus() can be active at a time,
> resulting in a deadlock. (either
Calling pause_all_vcpus()/resume_all_vcpus() from a VCPU thread might
not be the best idea. As pause_all_vcpus() temporarily drops the qemu
mutex, two parallel calls to pause_all_vcpus() can be active at a time,
resulting in a deadlock. (either by two VCPUs or by the main thread and a
VCPU)
Let's
10 matches
Mail list logo