On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
> qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure from what to what). But after the upgrade,
> one
> of my guests will not start up. It gets stuck with 60-80% cpu use, almost no
> memory is al
On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
> > qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure from what to what). But after the
> > upgrade, one of my guests will not start up. It gets stuck with
On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > > I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
> > > qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure from what to what). But after the
> > > upgrade
On 2012-02-18 09:50, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
>>> I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
>>> qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure from what to what). But after the
>>> upgrade, one o
On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-02-18 09:50, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> >>> I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
> >>> qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure fro
On 02/16/2012 10:41 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> Sharing the data structures is not need. Simply synchronize them before
> >>> lookup, like we do for ordinary registers.
> >>
> >> Ordinary registers are a few bytes. We're talking of dozens of kbytes here.
> >
> > A TLB way is a few dozen bytes, no
On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-02-18 09:50, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > On Sat Feb 18, 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-18 05:49, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> >>> I just updated my kvm host, kernel upgraded from 2.6.38 up to 3.2, and
> >>> qemu+qemu-kvm updated (not sure fro
On 02/17/2012 02:19 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > Or we try to be less clever unless we have a really compelling reason.
> > qemu monitor and gdb support aren't compelling reasons to optimize.
>
> The goal here was simplicity with a grain of performance concerns.
>
Shared memory is simple in
On 02/17/2012 02:09 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 21:28 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 02/16/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ioctl is good for hardware devices and stuff that you want to enumerate
> > > > and/or control permissions on. For something li
On 02/17/2012 07:31 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> And here is v4:
> - Changed TPR IP reporting in KVM user space irqchip mode to always
>report the instruction after the triggering one
> - Fixed bug that froze TCG with VAPIC enabled during setup
>(by making run_on_vcpus fully TCG compatible)
>
On 02/16/2012 10:19 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> Now that we have a flag that will tell the guest it was suspended, create an
> interface for that communication using a KVM ioctl.
> +4.70 KVM_KVMCLOCK_CTRL
> +
> +Capability: KVM_CAP_KVMCLOCK_CTRL
> +Architectures: Any that implement pvclocks (current
On 18.02.2012, at 11:00, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/17/2012 02:19 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> Or we try to be less clever unless we have a really compelling reason.
>>> qemu monitor and gdb support aren't compelling reasons to optimize.
>>
>> The goal here was simplicity with a grain of
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 09:10 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> Yes I agree that is the goal.
>
> > One last comment:
> > With synchronization there are other challenges when the entry in the
> > hardware conflicts with the entry in software when you intend the
> > behavior to be the same. This is not
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:53:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 03:48 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > The code fixed by the second patch looks suspect though:
> >
> > nsdiff = data - kvm->arch.last_tsc_write;
> > nsdiff = (nsdiff * 1000) / vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz;
> >
> > before the di
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Pete Ashdown wrote:
> On 02/17/2012 04:30 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Pete Ashdown wrote:
>>> I've been waiting for some response from the Ubuntu team regarding a bug on
>>> launchpad, but it appears that it isn't being taken ser
15 matches
Mail list logo
