On 11/11/2014 20:57, Matt Mullins wrote:
> That seems to work great, yes.
>
> Looking through the commit history, I see:
> kvmclock: Ensure time in migration never goes backward
> kvmclock: Ensure proper env->tsc value for kvmclock_current_nsec
> calculation
>
> Assuming those are
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:04:10AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> can you test using QEMU from git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu.git?
That seems to work great, yes.
Looking through the commit history, I see:
kvmclock: Ensure time in migration never goes backward
kvmclock: Ensure proper e
On 10/27/2014 07:42 PM, Matt Mullins wrote:
>>> > > I'm not really sure what to look at from here. I suppose leaving
>>> > > kvmclock
>>> > > disabled is a workaround for now, but is there a major disadvantage to
>>> > > doing
>>> > > so?
>> >
>> > Sorry for not following up. I think we have Q
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:42:41AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 15/09/2014 20:14, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> > I'm not really sure what to look at from here. I suppose leaving kvmclock
> > disabled is a workaround for now, but is there a major disadvantage to doing
> > so?
>
> Sorry for not f
Il 15/09/2014 20:14, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:53:49PM -0700, Matt Mullins wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:18:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> What version of QEMU? Can you try the 12.04 qemu (which IIRC is 1.0) on
>>> top of the newer kernel?
>>
>> I did repro
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:53:49PM -0700, Matt Mullins wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:18:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > What version of QEMU? Can you try the 12.04 qemu (which IIRC is 1.0) on
> > top of the newer kernel?
>
> I did reproduce this on qemu 1.0.1.
>
> What would you like
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:18:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 08/09/2014 17:56, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> >> > What host are you running?
> > What information do you want that I missed in my first email?
>
> What version of QEMU? Can you try the 12.04 qemu (which IIRC is 1.0) on
> top of t
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:18:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 08/09/2014 17:56, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> >> > What host are you running?
>
> What version of QEMU? Can you try the 12.04 qemu (which IIRC is 1.0) on
> top of the newer kernel?
I'm currently running the version included with
Il 08/09/2014 17:56, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
>> > What host are you running?
> What information do you want that I missed in my first email?
What version of QEMU? Can you try the 12.04 qemu (which IIRC is 1.0) on
top of the newer kernel?
Paolo
> > The hosts are dual-socket Nehalem Xeons (L5520
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:18:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 08/09/2014 07:54, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> > It also seems to happen reliably when the guest has been running for a
> > while;
> > it's easily reproducible with guests that have been up ~1 day, and I've
> > reproduced it in VMs
Il 08/09/2014 07:54, Matt Mullins ha scritto:
> It also seems to happen reliably when the guest has been running for a while;
> it's easily reproducible with guests that have been up ~1 day, and I've
> reproduced it in VMs with an uptime of ~20 hours. I haven't yet figured out a
> lower-bound, whi
Somewhere between kernel 3.2 and 3.11 on my VM hosts (yes, I know that narrows
it down a /whole lot/ ...), live migration started killing my Ubuntu precise
(kernel 3.2.x) guests, causing all of their vcpus to go into a busy loop. Once
(and only once) I've observed the guest eventually becoming res
12 matches
Mail list logo
