On 2014/11/21 1:38, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54:29AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Yes, you are right. This is what i really want, bypass all non-present faults
and only track strict wrprotect faults. ;)
So, do you plan to support that in the userfault API?
Yes I
On 2014/11/20 2:49, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhang,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:26:09AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 20:49, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On
Hi Andrea,
Is there any new about this discussion? ;)
Will you plan to support 'only wrprotect fault' in the userfault API?
Thanks,
zhanghailiang
On 2014/10/30 19:31, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:
On 2014/11/1 3:39, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Agreed, but for doing live memory snapshot (VM is running when do snapsphot),
we have to do this (block the write action), because we have to save the page
before it
is dirtied by writing
On 2014/10/31 13:17, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, zhanghailiang
wrote:
On 2014/10/31 11:29, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli
On 2014/10/31 11:29, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
I want to confirm a question:
Can we
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and
On 2014/10/30 20:49, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This is really a useful API.
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and
pshot, if we support configuring
userfault for writing memory only.
Thanks,
zhanghailiang
On 2014/10/4 1:07, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello everyone,
There's a large To/Cc list for this RFC because this adds two new
syscalls (userfaultfd and remap_anon_pages) and
MADV_USERFAULT/MADV_NOUSE
vnmi flexpriority ept vpid
bogomips: 4800.18
clflush size: 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
Thanks
Zhang hailiang
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 08:47:27AM +, Zhanghailiang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I found when Guest is id
Hi,
I found when Guest is idle, VDSO pvclock may increase host consumption.
We can calcutate as follow, Correct me if I am wrong.
(Host)250 * update_pvclock_gtod = 1500 * gettimeofday(Guest)
In Host, VDSO pvclock introduce a notifier chain, pvclock_gtod_chain in
timekeeping.c. It consume nea
12 matches
Mail list logo
