Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Eduardo, Jan
>>
>> I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
>> Have you made a final agreement of the issue
>> 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs. 'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
>
> I don't
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:02:03PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Eduardo, Jan
>
> I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
> Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
> 'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
I don't think there's a final agreement, b
Eduardo, Jan
I will update tsc deadline timer patch (at qemu-kvm side) recently.
Have you made a final agreement of the issue 'KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER' vs.
'GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID'?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> (CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
> expe
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:39:45PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:21:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >>On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:21:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexande
On 05/10/2012 02:53 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:38:02PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42
On 09.05.2012, at 21:38, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Gr
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 09.05.2012, at 1
On 05/09/2012 11:38 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +020
On 09.05.2012, at 10:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +020
On 09.05.2012, at 10:14, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:07:04AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Andre? Are you able to help to answer t
On 05/07/2012 08:21 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
Sorry for the delay, the easy answers first:
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of "-cpu host" to
be able to continue working on it.
The purpose of -cpu host is to let
On 08.05.2012, at 22:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
>>>
>>> I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:58:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> >
> > Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
> >
> > I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of "-cpu host" to
> > be able to continue working on
On 07.05.2012, at 20:21, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
>
> I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of "-cpu host" to
> be able to continue working on it. I believe the code will need to be
> fixed on either case, but first we n
Andre? Are you able to help to answer the question below?
I would like to clarify what's the expected behavior of "-cpu host" to
be able to continue working on it. I believe the code will need to be
fixed on either case, but first we need to figure out what are the
expectations/requirements, to k
(CCing Andre Przywara, in case he can help to clarify what's the
expected meaning of "-cpu host")
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> However, that was how I i
On 2012-04-23 22:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> Trying to summarize the points above:
>>>
>>> Groups (A) and (B) are:
>>>
>>> A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Trying to summarize the points above:
> >
> > Groups (A) and (B) are:
> >
> > A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
> >by userspace blindly, without
On 2012-04-23 16:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Trying to summarize the points above:
>
> Groups (A) and (B) are:
>
> A) a feature that KVM supports and emulate by itself and can be enabled
>by userspace blindly, without requiring any additional userspace
>code to work.
> B) a feature that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:23:50AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012
On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Jan/Avi: ping?
>
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> Jan/Avi: ping?
> >>>
> >>> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified s
On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> Jan/Avi: ping?
>>>
>>> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
>>> the right way on Qemu and KVM.
>>>
>>> My pr
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Jan/Avi: ping?
> >
> > I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
> > the right way on Qemu and KVM.
> >
> > My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the d
On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Jan/Avi: ping?
>
> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
> the right way on Qemu and KVM.
>
> My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
> GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER u
Jan/Avi: ping?
I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
the right way on Qemu and KVM.
My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER unnecessary.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:17:52PM +, Li
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>>
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> [1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
>>>
>>> "KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
>>> [...]
>>> This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both
>>> the hardware and kvm
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:49:27AM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > [1] From Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt:
> >
> > "KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
> > [...]
> > This ioctl returns x86 cpuid features which are supported by both the
> > hardware and kvm. Userspace can use the i
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>>
As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfie
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:53:57PM +, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 03/09/2012 01:27 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> >
> >> As for 'tsc deadline' feature exposing, my patch (as attached) just
> >> obey qemu general cpuid exposing method, and also satisfied your
> >> target I think
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:29PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> >>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > Any comments? I feel some c
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan,
>>
>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable
>> cpuid f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 09.03.2012 21:52, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> Andreas, do you expect CPU devices to be ready for qemu 1.1? We
> would need them to pass a feature exclusion mask from
> machine.compat_props to the (x86) CPU init code.
I was sure hoping to!
Marcelo and
On 2012-03-09 20:09, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
> feature for older machine type
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>>> common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
common app
On 2012-03-09 19:27, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>>> common approach for this common issue,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan,
>>
>> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid
>> feature for older machine types by default': are you planning a
>> common approach for this common issue, or, you just ask me a
>> specific solution for
On 2012-03-06 08:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature
> for older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for
> this common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc
> deadline timer
Jan,
Any comments? I feel some confused about your point 'disable cpuid feature for
older machine types by default': are you planning a common approach for this
common issue, or, you just ask me a specific solution for the tsc deadline
timer case?
Thanks,
Jinsong
Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> My po
46 matches
Mail list logo
