On 02/04/2016 05:01 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
Current PVH implementation has never been described as
production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is
essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level.
So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g?
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
Current PVH implementation has never been described as
production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is
essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level.
So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g?
From user perspective that will be alm
On 02/02/2016 07:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
So would you please confirm that this indeed fixes your issue?
I'm hesitant to put it in without confirmation, and it's likely too
late for 4.6.1 now anyway (so would then only appear in 4.6.2).
I don't build Xen. I use packages provided by Opensuse d
>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote:
> This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI:
> intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from
> unstable, which fixes PVH regression introduced by 9256f66c1606
> ("x86/PCI: intercept all PV Dom0 MMCFG writes")
So woul
On 02/01/2016 06:49 PM, Brendan Gregg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Current PVH implementation has never been described as
production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is
essentially bringing PVH to pro
>>> On 01.02.16 at 20:17, wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote:
>
>
> This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI:
> intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from
> unstable, which fixe
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>>> Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?
>>>
>>> Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support.
>>
On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?
Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support.
If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to
have it in
On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?
Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support.
If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to
have it integrated into:
http://wiki.xen.org/wik
On 02/01/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote:
This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI:
intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from
unstable, which fixes PVH regression introduced by 9256f66c1606
("x86/PCI: intercept all
On 02/01/2016 10:49 AM, PGNet Dev wrote:
On 02/01/2016 06:11 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough
that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to Linux
(especially given that AMD was still not supported).
Is 'HVMLite' repla
>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 08:38 AM, PGNet Dev wrote:
>>
>> Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default
>> ...Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default ...
>>
>> /EndEntire
>> /EndEntire
>> file path: file path:
>>
> /ACPI(a0341d0,0)/ACP
On 02/01/2016 06:11 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough
that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to Linux
(especially given that AMD was still not supported).
Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?
_
On 02/01/2016 08:38 AM, PGNet Dev wrote:
Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default
...Loading Xen 4.6.0_08-405 with Linux 4.4.0-8.g9f68b90-default ...
/EndEntire
/EndEntire
file path: file path:
/ACPI(a0341d0,0)/ACPI(a0341d0,0)/PCI(1,1c)/PCI(1,1c)/PCI(0,0)/PCI(0,0)/PCI(0,1
On 02/01/2016 05:28 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
IIRC Boris (CCed) added support for 32bit PVH to Linux, so you should
be able to use either 32 or 64 kernels. Roger.
This actually never happened for Linux: HVMlite showed up fast enough
that it didn't make sense anymore to add 32-bit support to
I'll get the dom0pvh issue logs posted.
http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/pvh-readme.txt
" ...
To boot 64bit dom0 in PVH mode, add dom0pvh to grub xen command line.
..."
http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=docs/misc/pvh.markdown
no mention
On 02/01/2016 04:29 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=docs/misc/pvh.markdown
That's all sorted now, thanks.
I'll get the dom0pvh issue logs posted.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://
On 02/01/2016 02:28 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
Do any of these^^ params need to also change with the addition of
pvh = 1
Yes, you need to remove builder, xen_platform_pci and
device_model_version, and add a kernel and ramdisk parameters that point
to the actual kernel and ramdisk tha
El 01/02/16 a les 13.23, PGNet Dev ha escrit:
> On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> (1) http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/pvh.html
>
> which also looks 'dusty'
>
> This looks more promising,
>
> (2) https://github.com/mirage/xen/blob/master/docs/misc/pvh.markdown
>
> That the on
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 04:23:46AM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> >(Cc Roger)
> >
> >On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
> >>I run Xen 4.6 Dom0
> >>
> >>rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4"
> >>kernel-default-devel-4.
On 02/01/2016 01:59 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
(Cc Roger)
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
I run Xen 4.6 Dom0
rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4"
kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64
xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64
My guest
On 02/01/2016 02:30 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
Does your kernel support PVH mode (ie: CONFIG_PVH enabled?)
not CONFIG_PVH, but per http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Linux_PVH
egrep \
"CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST=|CONFIG_PARAVIRT=|CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST=|CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=|CONFIG_XEN=|CONFIG_
El 01/02/16 a les 4.47, PGNet Dev ha escrit:
> In any case, the !st issue, prior to any guest being launched, simply
> adding
>
>> @ GRUBG cfg
>>
>> -GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" ..."
>> +GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" dom0pvh ..."
Does your kernel support PVH mode (ie: CONFIG_PVH enabled?)
> causes boot fail
El 31/01/16 a les 22.27, PGNet Dev ha escrit:
> I run Xen 4.6 Dom0
>
> rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4"
> kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64
> xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64
Are your kernels compiled with CONFIG_PVH enabled?
> My guests are currently HVM in
(Cc Roger)
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:27:23PM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
> I run Xen 4.6 Dom0
>
> rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4"
> kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64
> xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64
>
> My guests are currently HVM in PVHVM mode;
In any case, the !st issue, prior to any guest being launched, simply adding
@ GRUBG cfg
-GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" ..."
+GRUB_CMDLINE_XEN=" dom0pvh ..."
causes boot fail,
...
(XEN) [2016-01-31 19:28:09] d0v0 EPT violation 0x1aa (-w-/r-x) gpa
0x00f100054c mfn 0xf15
(XEN) [2016-01-31 1
I run Xen 4.6 Dom0
rpm -qa | egrep -i "kernel-default-4|xen-4"
kernel-default-devel-4.4.0-8.1.g9f68b90.x86_64
xen-4.6.0_08-405.1.x86_64
My guests are currently HVM in PVHVM mode; I'm exploring PVH.
IIUC, for 4.6, this doc
http://xenbits.xen.org/d
27 matches
Mail list logo
