On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:07:22AM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
> > > But the latter text seems to agree with that. So what is the actual
> > > problem that started this discussion?
> > >
> >
> > See https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-02/threads.html#00818
>
> I believe the actu
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:07:22AM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> > On 14/02/2019 18:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 07:03:38AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >>> The thing which is different between Xen PV g
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> On 14/02/2019 18:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 07:03:38AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> The thing which is different between Xen PV guests and most others (all
> >>> others(?), now that Lguest and UML have bee
On 14/02/2019 18:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 07:03:38AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> The thing which is different between Xen PV guests and most others (all
>>> others(?), now that Lguest and UML have been dropped) is that what Linux
>>> thinks of as PFN $N isn't neces
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 07:03:38AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > The thing which is different between Xen PV guests and most others (all
> > others(?), now that Lguest and UML have been dropped) is that what Linux
> > thinks of as PFN $N isn't necessarily adjacent to PFN $N+1 in system
> > physic
>>> On 13.02.19 at 18:45, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:09 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
>> >> > Ah, so this isn't necessarily Xen-specific but rather any paravir
>>> On 13.02.19 at 17:56, wrote:
> @@ -887,6 +888,8 @@ static int gmc_v6_0_sw_init(void *handle)
> dev_warn(adev->dev, "amdgpu: No coherent DMA available.\n");
> }
> adev->need_swiotlb = drm_get_max_iomem() > ((u64)1 << dma_bits);
> + if (xen_pv_domain())
> +
On 14/02/2019 01:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/02/2019 21:08, Michael Labriola wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2019 20:15, Michael Labriola wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 a
On 13/02/2019 19:38, Michael Labriola wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:09:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> On Wed,
On 13/02/2019 21:08, Michael Labriola wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 13/02/2019 20:15, Michael Labriola wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 20:15, Michael Labriola wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
On 13/02/2019 20:15, Michael Labriola wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:16 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On We
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Michael Labriola wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:09:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > >>> On 13.02.19
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM Michael Labriola
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:09:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:09:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
> > >> > Ah, so this isn't necessa
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:09 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
> >> > Ah, so this isn't necessarily Xen-specific but rather any paravirtual
> >> > guest? That hadn't crossed m
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:09:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
> >> > Ah, so this isn't necessarily Xen-specific but rather any paravirtual
> >> > guest? That hadn't cro
>>> On 13.02.19 at 17:00, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
>> > Ah, so this isn't necessarily Xen-specific but rather any paravirtual
>> > guest? That hadn't crossed my mind. Is there an easy way to find out
>> > if we're a pv gues
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:34 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> On 12.02.19 at 19:46, wrote:
> >> > Konrad,
> >> >
> >> > Starting w/ v4.17, I cannot log in to GNOME w/out getting the
> >> > following m
>>> On 13.02.19 at 15:10, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:34 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 12.02.19 at 19:46, wrote:
>> > Konrad,
>> >
>> > Starting w/ v4.17, I cannot log in to GNOME w/out getting the
>> > following mess in dmesg and ending up back at the GDM login screen.
>> >
>> > [
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:34 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 12.02.19 at 19:46, wrote:
> > Konrad,
> >
> > Starting w/ v4.17, I cannot log in to GNOME w/out getting the
> > following mess in dmesg and ending up back at the GDM login screen.
> >
> > [ 28.554259] radeon_dp_aux_transfer_native: 2
>>> On 12.02.19 at 19:46, wrote:
> Konrad,
>
> Starting w/ v4.17, I cannot log in to GNOME w/out getting the
> following mess in dmesg and ending up back at the GDM login screen.
>
> [ 28.554259] radeon_dp_aux_transfer_native: 200 callbacks suppressed
> [ 31.219821] radeon :01:00.0: swio
Konrad,
Starting w/ v4.17, I cannot log in to GNOME w/out getting the
following mess in dmesg and ending up back at the GDM login screen.
[ 28.554259] radeon_dp_aux_transfer_native: 200 callbacks suppressed
[ 31.219821] radeon :01:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 2097152 bytes)
[ 31.22
24 matches
Mail list logo
