the problem so far is SMP hosts, but I used this revision:
c3ea1e4ac8b2ff0f13d86289562a477f0ae3fd6b
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 19 December 2011 17:24, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/12/19 Christoffer D
On 19 December 2011 17:24, Christoffer Dall
wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>> 2011/12/19 Christoffer Dall :
>>> ok, just reproduced.
>>>
>>> Using the AEM v7 model, 2 cores, attached guest and host config.
>>>
>>> Host running on the v5 of the KVM/ARM branch, found
On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 2011/12/19 Christoffer Dall :
>> ok, just reproduced.
>>
>> Using the AEM v7 model, 2 cores, attached guest and host config.
>>
>> Host running on the v5 of the KVM/ARM branch, found here:
>> https://github.com/virtualopensystems/linux-kvm-arm
2011/12/19 Christoffer Dall :
> ok, just reproduced.
>
> Using the AEM v7 model, 2 cores, attached guest and host config.
>
> Host running on the v5 of the KVM/ARM branch, found here:
> https://github.com/virtualopensystems/linux-kvm-arm
>
> Guest kernel revision: f6b252b6b92671d2633008408c06d35c26
On 19/12/11 15:42, Antonios Motakis wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 04:40 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 19/12/11 15:30, Antonios Motakis wrote:
On 12/19/2011 04:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>
On 12/19/2011 04:40 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 19/12/11 15:30, Antonios Motakis wrote:
On 12/19/2011 04:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
You should simply start booting a UP guest on an SMP host,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 19/12/11 15:30, Antonios Motakis wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 04:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
You should simply start booting a UP guest on an SMP host, see where
it crashes and s
On 19/12/11 15:30, Antonios Motakis wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 04:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You should simply start booting a UP guest on an SMP host, see where
>>> it crashes and start tracking it down.
>> For the time being, I've yet to see U
On 12/19/2011 04:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
You should simply start booting a UP guest on an SMP host, see where
it crashes and start tracking it down.
For the time being, I've yet to see UP guest crashing on SMP host. On
the model, that is...
La
On 19/12/11 14:57, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Antonios Motakis
> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2011 11:25 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> WARNING: This code is in development and guests do not fully boot on SMP
>>> hosts yet.
>> Hello,
>>
>> What would still be needed to fully
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Antonios Motakis
wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 11:25 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> WARNING: This code is in development and guests do not fully boot on SMP
>> hosts yet.
> Hello,
>
> What would still be needed to fully booted SMP? For example, are there
> identified crit
On Dec 13, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 03:36 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> if (new_virt_intr == IRQ | FIQ && virt_intr == FIQ) {
>>> /* IRQ raised, FIQ already set */
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> hmm, so what you want to avoid here is sending an IPI to the other C
On 12/13/2011 03:36 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > if (new_virt_intr == IRQ | FIQ && virt_intr == FIQ) {
> > /* IRQ raised, FIQ already set */
> > return;
> > }
> >
>
> hmm, so what you want to avoid here is sending an IPI to the other CPU
> in case we already have FIQ raised? But I th
On 13/12/11 13:36, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> if (new_virt_intr == IRQ | FIQ && virt_intr == FIQ) {
>> /* IRQ raised, FIQ already set */
>> return;
>> }
>>
>
> hmm, so what you want to avoid here is sending an IPI to the other CPU
>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 09:36 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >>
>> >> something like this:
>> >>
>> >> if (irq_level->level) {
>> >> set_bit(&vcpu->arch.irq_lines, bit_nr);
>> >> smp_mb();
>> >> wake_up_interruptible(&vcpu->wq);
>> >
>>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 07:37 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >
>> > This looks overly complicated with two levels of locks. x86 gets by
>> > with no locks, and a much more complicated interrupt architecture.
>> >
>> > My recommendation is:
>> > wait_fo
16 matches
Mail list logo
