similar to: virtio PCI on KVM without IO BARs

These patches add a test device, useful to measure speed of MMIO versus PIO, in different configurations. As I didn't want to reserve a hardcoded range of memory, I added pci device for this instead. Used together with the kvm unittest patches I posted on kvm mailing list. To use, simply add the device on the pci bus. Example test output: vmcall 1519 .... outl_to_kernel 1745

These patches add a test device, useful to measure speed of MMIO versus PIO, in different configurations. As I didn't want to reserve a hardcoded range of memory, I added pci device for this instead. Used together with the kvm unittest patches I posted on kvm mailing list. To use, simply add the device on the pci bus. Example test output: vmcall 1519 .... outl_to_kernel 1745

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > > we would

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > > we would

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:56:15AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> Rusty

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:56:15AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> Rusty

With KVM, MMIO is much slower than PIO, due to the need to do page walk and emulation. But with EPT, it does not have to be: we know the address from the VMCS so if the address is unique, we can look up the eventfd directly, bypassing emulation. Add an interface for userspace to specify this per-address, we can use this e.g. for virtio. The implementation adds a separate bus internally. This

With KVM, MMIO is much slower than PIO, due to the need to do page walk and emulation. But with EPT, it does not have to be: we know the address from the VMCS so if the address is unique, we can look up the eventfd directly, bypassing emulation. Add an interface for userspace to specify this per-address, we can use this e.g. for virtio. The implementation adds a separate bus internally. This

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:08:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:08:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >

Hi, I am currently working on hypercalls from HVM guests. I started with a set of Intel patches posted to xen-devel last September. I currently have code running for both 32-bit and 64-bit HVM guests running on a 64-bit hypervisor. I am curious why none of the original patches were accepted, and what I might need to do to make them acceptable. Is other work being done in this area that

Hi all, As part of IPv6 version specific classification support in crossbow we are introducing ip_version option in flowadm interface and associated classification functions. If ip_version option is not specified, but v4 or v6 address is passed as arg. to ip_addr option of flowadm cli that can also help to populate version specific bits in flow_mask to specify if policy (and flow entry

Hi everyone, I could have posted this on R-devel or the GUI list, however don't feel it's that serious. Hence, decided R-help would be the most appropriate. I'm not so much interested in which is the best user interface for R. Rather which is the best ***platform*** for developing ***new*** user interfaces for R. Noting I'm using the term user interface is a very general sense.

I know this thread has been discussed before, but I have run into this problem and would like to re-open it... I have come to a point in my project where I need to provide an import/export feature for Active Records. Since a user could export off one system and import onto another auto-increment integers will not work (collisions on ids due to lack of uniquness). Listed below is an initial list

Hi Rusty, I had a look over your 011-paravirt-head.S.patch. I'm struggling to come up with a list of any benefits over having separate entrypoints for each hypervisor. Multiple entry pros: * allows maximum startup flexibility for any given hypervisor * for Xen at least, it's pretty simple * the "what hypervisor am I under" question is answered trivially cons:

Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >> I should have asked a better question. By "does it work" I meant something >> like >> >> for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) >> System.out.println(a[i]); >> >> > > OK, so no :) VMKit does not know that a[i] is related to a.length. I > believe Andre's

It would seem an odd question, but I'm trying to put together a little presentation on 'Why Asterisk?' and need to list Pros and Cons.... I've got plenty of Pros (including the availability of commercial support), but the only Con I can think of is 'Relatively few installations worldwide' Can anyone think of any others? Cheeres, Gavin.

Hi Everyone, I would like to implement GCC ifunc attribute support in Clang and LLVM. At the moment Clang ignores the attribute with a warning. On LLVM IR level there is no support for ifunc. But there is some support for ELF symbol type `@gnu_indirect_function` in ELF reader/writer/target asm parser. This RFC is looking for thoughts and suggestions about representation of ifunc in LLVM IR.

All, I have a question on how to deal with a quirk of the Intel Boot Agent. Both for PXE boots and for EFI boots. I've noticed this IBA quirk for years. According to the "DHCP options" RFC, variable length DHCP options are not necessarily null-terminated. Here's the details: >From DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2132#section-2)

Currently we use pv-ops to tell linux not to do anything on io_delay. While the basic idea is good IMHO, I don't see why we would need pv-ops for that. The io delay function already has a switch that can do nothing if you're so inclined. So here's a patch (stacked on top of the previous pv-ops series) that removes the io delay pv-ops hook and just sets the native io delay variable