On 12/19/2011 07:50 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it is good (not sure), need to look into schedstats and think of
> > cases that would break legitimate guest hangs. And it probably also
> > affects the position of clearing the flag on the guest side as its
> > currently done in Eric's
On 12/19/2011 07:59 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) 19 Dec 2011 [14:59:36], Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/19/2011 02:52 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
(snip)
S4 needs some treatment, though, as resume after s4 doesn't work with
kvmclock enabled. I didn't realise this series was only handling the
soft lockup
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 11:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up
> > > > with timer interrupt processing. This is considered a hang and
> > > > should be reported.
> > >
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:11:08PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/16/2011 11:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up
> > > > > with timer interrupt
On (Mon) 19 Dec 2011 [14:59:36], Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 02:52 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
(snip)
> > S4 needs some treatment, though, as resume after s4 doesn't work with
> > kvmclock enabled. I didn't realise this series was only handling the
> > soft lockup case.
> >
>
> What's the issue
On 12/15/2011 08:53 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> I am working on V7 to incorporate the __this_cpu_and suggestion, would you
> consider that for inclusion and we can continue discussing the need for the
> preemption notification work?
Okay.
> I think that having a guest complain when the
> host is
On 12/19/2011 02:52 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Thu) 15 Dec 2011 [13:55:15], Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like
> > > > a soft
> > >
On 12/16/2011 11:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up
> > > with timer interrupt processing. This is considered a hang and
> > > should be reported.
> >
> > It's not a guest hang though!
>
> No, but your host system is in s
On (Thu) 15 Dec 2011 [13:55:15], Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a
> > > soft
> > > lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning ca
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:21:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 08:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:39:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 07:58 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > I don't think you should see a guest softlockup if the host is
> > > overloaded. Nor should you see it due to a long live migration pause,
> > > or STOP/CONT. You should see a guest softlockup if it is sp
On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote:
> > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a
> > soft
> > lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup
> > warnings which may be real. Thi
On 12/14/2011 08:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:39:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for SIGSTOP
> > > > or for long scheduling delays. What about doing th
On 12/14/2011 07:58 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > I don't think you should see a guest softlockup if the host is
> > overloaded. Nor should you see it due to a long live migration pause,
> > or STOP/CONT. You should see a guest softlockup if it is spinning due
> > to a guest bug, and not for any o
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:39:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for SIGSTOP
> > > or for long scheduling delays. What about doing this automatically
> > > based on preempt notifiers?
> >
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 05:19 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> > >
> > My concern for preempt notifiers is masking real soft lockup warnings. If
> > the
> > flag is set every time the vm is preempted, it
On 12/08/2011 05:19 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> >
> My concern for preempt notifiers is masking real soft lockup warnings. If the
> flag is set every time the vm is preempted, it becomes more likely that we
> will
> mask real warning
On 12/14/2011 04:49 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> About SIGSTOP, that is a corner case. Unsure if its even properly
>>> supported
>>> by QEMU.
>>
>> It works from my experience.
>
>
> We don't adjust vm_clock's offset on SIGSTOP/SIGCONT so while it may
> appear to work okay, QEMU isn't exhibiti
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for SIGSTOP
> > > or for long scheduling delays. What about doing this automatically
> > > based on preempt notifiers?
> >
> > Long scheduling
On 12/14/2011 08:39 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for SIGSTOP
or for long scheduling delays. What about doing this automatically
based on preempt notifiers?
Long scheduling delays should be cons
On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for SIGSTOP
> > or for long scheduling delays. What about doing this automatically
> > based on preempt notifiers?
>
> Long scheduling delays should be considered hangups from the guest
>
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 04:41:17PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 10:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > Changes from V4:
> > Rename KVM_GUEST_PAUSED to KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED
> > Add description of KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED ioctl to api.txt
> >
> > Changes from V3:
> > Include CC's on patch 3
> >
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote:
> >>When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a
> >>soft
> >>lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup
> >>warnings which may be real. This patch series adds a method for a host
On 12/07/2011 04:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/05/2011 10:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
Changes from V4:
Rename KVM_GUEST_PAUSED to KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED
Add description of KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED ioctl to api.txt
Changes from V3:
Include CC's on patch 3
Drop clear flag ioctl and have the watchdog
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 10:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > Changes from V4:
> > Rename KVM_GUEST_PAUSED to KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED
> > Add description of KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED ioctl to api.txt
> >
> > Changes from V3:
> > Include CC's on patch 3
> > Drop clear flag ioc
On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote:
> When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a soft
> lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup
> warnings which may be real. This patch series adds a method for a host
> hypervisor t
On 12/05/2011 10:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> Changes from V4:
> Rename KVM_GUEST_PAUSED to KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED
> Add description of KVMCLOCK_GUEST_PAUSED ioctl to api.txt
>
> Changes from V3:
> Include CC's on patch 3
> Drop clear flag ioctl and have the watchdog clear the flag when it is reset
27 matches
Mail list logo
