search for: radim

2016-10-24 16:39+0200, Paolo Bonzini: > On 19/10/2016 19:24, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: >>> > + if (vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_MSR_ENABLED) >>> > + if (kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime, >>> > + &vcpu->arch.st.steal, >>> > + sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time)) == 0) { >&gt...

2016-10-24 16:39+0200, Paolo Bonzini: > On 19/10/2016 19:24, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: >>> > + if (vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_MSR_ENABLED) >>> > + if (kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime, >>> > + &vcpu->arch.st.steal, >>> > + sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time)) == 0) { >&gt...

...igured prefix INBOX too. BUT mails are delivered to INBOX.INBOX.test_folder and thats ugly and not usable. I've figured out new version 1.2 should work, but i dont like idea to install not stable version to production server. Is there any patch or something for stable version? Thanks a lot! Radim

...__u32 flags; >>> - __u32 pad[12]; >>> + __u8 preempted; >>> + __u32 pad[11]; >>> } >> >> I think I'd be explicit about the 3 pad bytes you've left. > > Seconded. > > With that change are all KVM bits > > Acked-by: Radim Kr?m?? <rkrcmar at redhat.com> Saw this after replying to the previous message. If you need to post v6 of the full series, it would be nice if you removed the kvm_read_guest_cached. But anyway it wasn't my intention to override Radim. Paolo

...__u32 flags; >>> - __u32 pad[12]; >>> + __u8 preempted; >>> + __u32 pad[11]; >>> } >> >> I think I'd be explicit about the 3 pad bytes you've left. > > Seconded. > > With that change are all KVM bits > > Acked-by: Radim Kr?m?? <rkrcmar at redhat.com> Saw this after replying to the previous message. If you need to post v6 of the full series, it would be nice if you removed the kvm_read_guest_cached. But anyway it wasn't my intention to override Radim. Paolo

From: Pan Xinhui > Sent: 20 October 2016 22:28 > Commit ("x86, kvm: support vcpu preempted check") add one field "__u8 > preempted" into struct kvm_steal_time. This field tells if one vcpu is > running or not. > > It is zero if 1) some old KVM deos not support this filed. 2) the vcpu is > preempted. Other values means the vcpu has been preempted. >

From: Pan Xinhui > Sent: 20 October 2016 22:28 > Commit ("x86, kvm: support vcpu preempted check") add one field "__u8 > preempted" into struct kvm_steal_time. This field tells if one vcpu is > running or not. > > It is zero if 1) some old KVM deos not support this filed. 2) the vcpu is > preempted. Other values means the vcpu has been preempted. >

2016-10-19 06:20-0400, Pan Xinhui: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. > Currently kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It > takes the cpu as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then > kernel can break the spin loops upon on the retval of

2016-10-19 06:20-0400, Pan Xinhui: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. > Currently kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It > takes the cpu as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then > kernel can break the spin loops upon on the retval of

On 24/10/2016 17:14, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > 2016-10-24 16:39+0200, Paolo Bonzini: >> On 19/10/2016 19:24, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: >>>>> + if (vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_MSR_ENABLED) >>>>> + if (kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime, >>>>> +...

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc., > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime() > > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet > > another slightly di...

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc., > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime() > > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet > > another slightly di...

2014-05-13 15:47-0400, Waiman Long: > On 05/12/2014 11:22 AM, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > >I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: > >1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. > >2) Pending VCPU gets descheduled. > > - we have PLE and lock holder isn't running [1] > > - the hypervisor randomly preempts u...

2014-05-13 15:47-0400, Waiman Long: > On 05/12/2014 11:22 AM, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > >I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: > >1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. > >2) Pending VCPU gets descheduled. > > - we have PLE and lock holder isn't running [1] > > - the hypervisor randomly preempts u...

2014-05-07 11:01-0400, Waiman Long: > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: 1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. 2) Pending VCPU gets

2014-05-07 11:01-0400, Waiman Long: > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: 1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. 2) Pending VCPU gets

Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> writes: >> On Oct 3, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> writes: >> >>> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc., >>> >> The notification you're talking about exists, it is called >> Reenligntenment, see 0092e4346f49 "x86/kvm: Support Hyper-V >> reenlightenment"). When TSC page changes (and this only happens when L1 >> is migrated to a different host with...

Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> writes: >> On Oct 3, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> writes: >> >>> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc., >>> >> The notification you're talking about exists, it is called >> Reenligntenment, see 0092e4346f49 "x86/kvm: Support Hyper-V >> reenlightenment"). When TSC page changes (and this only happens when L1 >> is migrated to a different host with...

2014-05-14 19:00+0200, Peter Zijlstra: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:51:24PM +0200, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > > Ok. > > I've seen merit in pvqspinlock even with slightly slower first-waiter, > > so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. > > (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be > > strictly better than ticke...

2014-05-14 19:00+0200, Peter Zijlstra: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:51:24PM +0200, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > > Ok. > > I've seen merit in pvqspinlock even with slightly slower first-waiter, > > so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. > > (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be > > strictly better than ticke...