On 08/10/2018 09:09, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> Paolo,
>
>> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
>> On 11/09/2018 08:00, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
>>> Thanks, that works. Here is the updated diff (stubs were added).
>>> Will you apply it?
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the quick test!
>
> Thanks fo
Paolo,
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> On 11/09/2018 08:00, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> > Thanks, that works. Here is the updated diff (stubs were added).
> > Will you apply it?
>
> Yes, thanks for the quick test!
Thanks for applying RR patches, but I think you forgot about thi
On 11/09/2018 08:00, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> Thanks, that works. Here is the updated diff (stubs were added).
> Will you apply it?
Yes, thanks for the quick test!
Paolo
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> On 10/09/2018 07:36, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> > After locking here,
> >
> >> if (runstate_is_running()) {
> >> int64_t clock = REPLAY_CLOCK(REPLAY_CLOCK_VIRTUAL_RT,
> >> cpu_get_clock_locked());
On 10/09/2018 07:36, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> After locking here,
>
>> if (runstate_is_running()) {
>> int64_t clock = REPLAY_CLOCK(REPLAY_CLOCK_VIRTUAL_RT,
>> cpu_get_clock_locked());
> REPLAY_CLOCK can't request icount with cpu_get_icount_raw,
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> On 28/08/2018 09:23, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> > Hi, Paolo!
> >
> > Seems that this one breaks the record/replay.
>
> What are the symptoms?
Please look below.
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> >> In the next patch, we wil
On 28/08/2018 09:23, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> Hi, Paolo!
>
> Seems that this one breaks the record/replay.
What are the symptoms?
Paolo
>> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
>> In the next patch, we will need to write cpu_ticks_offset from any
>> thread, even outside the BQL. Cur
Hi, Paolo!
Seems that this one breaks the record/replay.
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> In the next patch, we will need to write cpu_ticks_offset from any
> thread, even outside the BQL. Currently, it is protected by the BQL
> just because cpu_enable_ticks and cpu_disable_t
