similar to: problem with paravirt part of series

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100000 matches similar to: "problem with paravirt part of series"

2008 Mar 11
1
2.6.25-rc5-mm1 (paravirt/vsmp/no PCI)
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:14:34 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc5/2.6.25-rc5-mm1/ randconfig (x86_64) with PCI=n PARAVIRT=y VSMP=n ends with arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o: In function `is_vsmp_box': (.text+0x1178d): undefined reference to `early_pci_allowed' arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o: In function `is_vsmp_box':
2008 Mar 11
1
2.6.25-rc5-mm1 (paravirt/vsmp/no PCI)
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:14:34 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc5/2.6.25-rc5-mm1/ randconfig (x86_64) with PCI=n PARAVIRT=y VSMP=n ends with arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o: In function `is_vsmp_box': (.text+0x1178d): undefined reference to `early_pci_allowed' arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o: In function `is_vsmp_box':
2007 Apr 18
1
Paravirt-ops next steps
So it's gotten a bit confusing to figure out how we should go about upstreaming the rest of our patches. Our patchkit in the paravirt-ops tree currently applies to 2.6.19-rc4-mm2, but there are a number of conflicts that got resolved when merging into Andi's i386 tree. What is the best way to sanitize the remaining patches so they smoothly integrate into the appropriate trees?
2007 Apr 18
1
Paravirt-ops next steps
So it's gotten a bit confusing to figure out how we should go about upstreaming the rest of our patches. Our patchkit in the paravirt-ops tree currently applies to 2.6.19-rc4-mm2, but there are a number of conflicts that got resolved when merging into Andi's i386 tree. What is the best way to sanitize the remaining patches so they smoothly integrate into the appropriate trees?
2007 Apr 18
5
[patch 0/4] Revised softlockup watchdog improvement patches
Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,
2007 Apr 18
5
[patch 0/4] Revised softlockup watchdog improvement patches
Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,
2007 Apr 18
4
paravirt repo rebased to 2.6.21-rc6-mm1
Seems to work OK for native and Xen. I had to play a bit with the paravirt-sched-clock patch to deal with the VMI changes. Zach, can you check that it still works? Thanks, J
2007 Apr 18
4
paravirt repo rebased to 2.6.21-rc6-mm1
Seems to work OK for native and Xen. I had to play a bit with the paravirt-sched-clock patch to deal with the VMI changes. Zach, can you check that it still works? Thanks, J
2007 Dec 12
5
[PATCH 0/6] paravirt patches - the non-integration part
Hi, This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general, they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the unification a big problem on its own). They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for inclusion, unless someone opposes. As with the other patches, they apply to
2007 Dec 12
5
[PATCH 0/6] paravirt patches - the non-integration part
Hi, This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general, they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the unification a big problem on its own). They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for inclusion, unless someone opposes. As with the other patches, they apply to
2007 Apr 18
2
paravirt & xen & SMP
Hi, Anyone has this working? Looks like there is a chicken-and-egg issue with pda setup: * xen_load_gdt() uses multicalls, thus depends on cpu-specific variables (per-cpu mc buffer) which in turn requires pda being setup already. * pda setup can't be done before xen_load_gdt() ... Next question while looking at xen_load_gdt(): why does it use multicalls in the first place?
2007 Apr 18
2
paravirt & xen & SMP
Hi, Anyone has this working? Looks like there is a chicken-and-egg issue with pda setup: * xen_load_gdt() uses multicalls, thus depends on cpu-specific variables (per-cpu mc buffer) which in turn requires pda being setup already. * pda setup can't be done before xen_load_gdt() ... Next question while looking at xen_load_gdt(): why does it use multicalls in the first place?
2007 Feb 08
5
vmx status report against changeset 13826
We have tested the latest xen on VT platform with Intel 915/E8500 chipset. Three platforms (32/PAE/32E) test all are based on SMP, It means that we boot up SMP guest OS in VMX. Here is the test summary: New issue ================================================ No new issue Issues List: ================================================ 1) IA32E/PAE: 32bit Vista RTM network doesn''t
2007 Jan 30
45
[PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vcpu hotplug
Stamp softlockup thread earlier before do_timer, because the latter is the one to actually trigger lock warning for long-time offline. Or else, I obserevd softlockup warning easily at manual vcpu hot-remove/plug, or when suspend cancel into old context. One point here is to cover both stolen and blocked time to compare with offline threshold. vcpu hotplug falls into ''stolen''
2007 Apr 18
2
[PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time
The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which
2007 Apr 18
2
[PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time
The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which
2005 Aug 22
3
Help me with my memory
Okay, now, before 3.10 is finalized... what bug reports am I still forgetting? -hpa
2008 Jan 18
6
[PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT
Hi, This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small steps are needed. The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually preventing the whole tree from booting.
2008 Jan 18
6
[PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT
Hi, This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small steps are needed. The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually preventing the whole tree from booting.
2007 Apr 18
2
[patch 0/2] softlockup watchdog improvements
Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog. The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock() as a timebase. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite. The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer. This allows the timer to be disabled when the