All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:06:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100504215645.6448af8f.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>

On 05/04/2010 03:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> [Performance test]
>
> We measured the tsc needed to the ioctl()s for getting dirty logs in
> kernel.
>
> Test environment
>
>    AMD Phenom(tm) 9850 Quad-Core Processor with 8GB memory
>
>
> 1. GUI test (running Ubuntu guest in graphical mode)
>
>    sudo qemu-system-x86_64 -hda dirtylog_test.img -boot c -m 4192 -net ...
>
> We show a relatively stable part to compare how much time is needed
> for the basic parts of dirty log ioctl.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[7].len2768          278379     66398     64024
> slots[8].len2768          181246       270       160
> slots[7].len2768          263961     64673     64494
> slots[8].len2768          181655       265       160
> slots[7].len2768          263736     64701     64610
> slots[8].len2768          182785       267       160
> slots[7].len2768          260925     65360     65042
> slots[8].len2768          182579       264       160
> slots[7].len2768          267823     65915     65682
> slots[8].len2768          186350       271       160
>
> At a glance, we know our optimization improved significantly compared
> to the original get dirty log ioctl. This is true for both get.opt and
> switch.opt. This has a really big impact for the personal KVM users who
> drive KVM in GUI mode on their usual PCs.
>
> Next, we notice that switch.opt improved a hundred nano seconds or so for
> these slots. Although this may sound a bit tiny improvement, we can feel
> this as a difference of GUI's responses like mouse reactions.
>    

100 ns... this is a bit on the low side (and if you can measure it 
interactively you have much better reflexes than I).

> To feel the difference, please try GUI on your PC with our patch series!
>    

No doubt get.org -> get.opt is measurable, but get.opt->switch.opt is 
problematic.  Have you tried profiling to see where the time is spent 
(well I can guess, clearing the write access from the sptes).

>
> 2. Live-migration test (4GB guest, write loop with 1GB buf)
>
> We also did a live-migration test.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[0].lene5360         797383    261144    222181
> slots[1].len757047808    2186721   1965244   1842824
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1433562   1012723   1031213
> slots[3].len\x131072         216858       331       331
> slots[4].len\x131072         121635       225       164
> slots[5].len\x131072         120863       356       164
> slots[6].len\x16777216       121746      1133       156
> slots[7].len2768          120415       230       278
> slots[8].len2768          120368       216       149
> slots[0].lene5360         806497    194710    223582
> slots[1].len757047808    2142922   1878025   1895369
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1386512   1021309   1000345
> slots[3].len\x131072         221118       459       296
> slots[4].len\x131072         121516       272       166
> slots[5].len\x131072         122652       244       173
> slots[6].len\x16777216       123226     99185       149
> slots[7].len2768          121803       457       505
> slots[8].len2768          121586       216       155
> slots[0].lene5360         766113    211317    213179
> slots[1].len757047808    2155662   1974790   1842361
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1481411   1020004   1031352
> slots[3].len\x131072         223100       351       295
> slots[4].len\x131072         122982       436       164
> slots[5].len\x131072         122100       300       503
> slots[6].len\x16777216       123653       779       151
> slots[7].len2768          122617       284       157
> slots[8].len2768          122737       253       149
>
> For slots other than 0,1,2 we can see the similar improvement.
>
> Considering the fact that switch.opt does not depend on the bitmap length
> except for kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(), this is the cause of some
> usec to msec time consumption: there might be some context switches.
>
> But note that this was done with the workload which dirtied the memory
> endlessly during the live-migration.
>
> In usual workload, the number of dirty pages varies a lot for each iteration
> and we should gain really a lot for relatively clean cases.
>    

Can you post such a test, for an idle large guest?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, agraf@suse.de,
	yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:06:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100504215645.6448af8f.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>

On 05/04/2010 03:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> [Performance test]
>
> We measured the tsc needed to the ioctl()s for getting dirty logs in
> kernel.
>
> Test environment
>
>    AMD Phenom(tm) 9850 Quad-Core Processor with 8GB memory
>
>
> 1. GUI test (running Ubuntu guest in graphical mode)
>
>    sudo qemu-system-x86_64 -hda dirtylog_test.img -boot c -m 4192 -net ...
>
> We show a relatively stable part to compare how much time is needed
> for the basic parts of dirty log ioctl.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[7].len2768          278379     66398     64024
> slots[8].len2768          181246       270       160
> slots[7].len2768          263961     64673     64494
> slots[8].len2768          181655       265       160
> slots[7].len2768          263736     64701     64610
> slots[8].len2768          182785       267       160
> slots[7].len2768          260925     65360     65042
> slots[8].len2768          182579       264       160
> slots[7].len2768          267823     65915     65682
> slots[8].len2768          186350       271       160
>
> At a glance, we know our optimization improved significantly compared
> to the original get dirty log ioctl. This is true for both get.opt and
> switch.opt. This has a really big impact for the personal KVM users who
> drive KVM in GUI mode on their usual PCs.
>
> Next, we notice that switch.opt improved a hundred nano seconds or so for
> these slots. Although this may sound a bit tiny improvement, we can feel
> this as a difference of GUI's responses like mouse reactions.
>    

100 ns... this is a bit on the low side (and if you can measure it 
interactively you have much better reflexes than I).

> To feel the difference, please try GUI on your PC with our patch series!
>    

No doubt get.org -> get.opt is measurable, but get.opt->switch.opt is 
problematic.  Have you tried profiling to see where the time is spent 
(well I can guess, clearing the write access from the sptes).

>
> 2. Live-migration test (4GB guest, write loop with 1GB buf)
>
> We also did a live-migration test.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[0].lene5360         797383    261144    222181
> slots[1].len757047808    2186721   1965244   1842824
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1433562   1012723   1031213
> slots[3].len\x131072         216858       331       331
> slots[4].len\x131072         121635       225       164
> slots[5].len\x131072         120863       356       164
> slots[6].len\x16777216       121746      1133       156
> slots[7].len2768          120415       230       278
> slots[8].len2768          120368       216       149
> slots[0].lene5360         806497    194710    223582
> slots[1].len757047808    2142922   1878025   1895369
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1386512   1021309   1000345
> slots[3].len\x131072         221118       459       296
> slots[4].len\x131072         121516       272       166
> slots[5].len\x131072         122652       244       173
> slots[6].len\x16777216       123226     99185       149
> slots[7].len2768          121803       457       505
> slots[8].len2768          121586       216       155
> slots[0].lene5360         766113    211317    213179
> slots[1].len757047808    2155662   1974790   1842361
> slots[2].lenc7534208     1481411   1020004   1031352
> slots[3].len\x131072         223100       351       295
> slots[4].len\x131072         122982       436       164
> slots[5].len\x131072         122100       300       503
> slots[6].len\x16777216       123653       779       151
> slots[7].len2768          122617       284       157
> slots[8].len2768          122737       253       149
>
> For slots other than 0,1,2 we can see the similar improvement.
>
> Considering the fact that switch.opt does not depend on the bitmap length
> except for kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(), this is the cause of some
> usec to msec time consumption: there might be some context switches.
>
> But note that this was done with the workload which dirtied the memory
> endlessly during the live-migration.
>
> In usual workload, the number of dirty pages varies a lot for each iteration
> and we should gain really a lot for relatively clean cases.
>    

Can you post such a test, for an idle large guest?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, agraf@suse.de,
	yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:06:47 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100504215645.6448af8f.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>

On 05/04/2010 03:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> [Performance test]
>
> We measured the tsc needed to the ioctl()s for getting dirty logs in
> kernel.
>
> Test environment
>
>    AMD Phenom(tm) 9850 Quad-Core Processor with 8GB memory
>
>
> 1. GUI test (running Ubuntu guest in graphical mode)
>
>    sudo qemu-system-x86_64 -hda dirtylog_test.img -boot c -m 4192 -net ...
>
> We show a relatively stable part to compare how much time is needed
> for the basic parts of dirty log ioctl.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[7].len=32768          278379     66398     64024
> slots[8].len=32768          181246       270       160
> slots[7].len=32768          263961     64673     64494
> slots[8].len=32768          181655       265       160
> slots[7].len=32768          263736     64701     64610
> slots[8].len=32768          182785       267       160
> slots[7].len=32768          260925     65360     65042
> slots[8].len=32768          182579       264       160
> slots[7].len=32768          267823     65915     65682
> slots[8].len=32768          186350       271       160
>
> At a glance, we know our optimization improved significantly compared
> to the original get dirty log ioctl. This is true for both get.opt and
> switch.opt. This has a really big impact for the personal KVM users who
> drive KVM in GUI mode on their usual PCs.
>
> Next, we notice that switch.opt improved a hundred nano seconds or so for
> these slots. Although this may sound a bit tiny improvement, we can feel
> this as a difference of GUI's responses like mouse reactions.
>    

100 ns... this is a bit on the low side (and if you can measure it 
interactively you have much better reflexes than I).

> To feel the difference, please try GUI on your PC with our patch series!
>    

No doubt get.org -> get.opt is measurable, but get.opt->switch.opt is 
problematic.  Have you tried profiling to see where the time is spent 
(well I can guess, clearing the write access from the sptes).

>
> 2. Live-migration test (4GB guest, write loop with 1GB buf)
>
> We also did a live-migration test.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[0].len=655360         797383    261144    222181
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2186721   1965244   1842824
> slots[2].len=637534208     1433562   1012723   1031213
> slots[3].len=131072         216858       331       331
> slots[4].len=131072         121635       225       164
> slots[5].len=131072         120863       356       164
> slots[6].len=16777216       121746      1133       156
> slots[7].len=32768          120415       230       278
> slots[8].len=32768          120368       216       149
> slots[0].len=655360         806497    194710    223582
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2142922   1878025   1895369
> slots[2].len=637534208     1386512   1021309   1000345
> slots[3].len=131072         221118       459       296
> slots[4].len=131072         121516       272       166
> slots[5].len=131072         122652       244       173
> slots[6].len=16777216       123226     99185       149
> slots[7].len=32768          121803       457       505
> slots[8].len=32768          121586       216       155
> slots[0].len=655360         766113    211317    213179
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2155662   1974790   1842361
> slots[2].len=637534208     1481411   1020004   1031352
> slots[3].len=131072         223100       351       295
> slots[4].len=131072         122982       436       164
> slots[5].len=131072         122100       300       503
> slots[6].len=16777216       123653       779       151
> slots[7].len=32768          122617       284       157
> slots[8].len=32768          122737       253       149
>
> For slots other than 0,1,2 we can see the similar improvement.
>
> Considering the fact that switch.opt does not depend on the bitmap length
> except for kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(), this is the cause of some
> usec to msec time consumption: there might be some context switches.
>
> But note that this was done with the workload which dirtied the memory
> endlessly during the live-migration.
>
> In usual workload, the number of dirty pages varies a lot for each iteration
> and we should gain really a lot for relatively clean cases.
>    

Can you post such a test, for an idle large guest?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, mtosatti@redhat.com, agraf@suse.de,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:06:47 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100504215645.6448af8f.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>

On 05/04/2010 03:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> [Performance test]
>
> We measured the tsc needed to the ioctl()s for getting dirty logs in
> kernel.
>
> Test environment
>
>    AMD Phenom(tm) 9850 Quad-Core Processor with 8GB memory
>
>
> 1. GUI test (running Ubuntu guest in graphical mode)
>
>    sudo qemu-system-x86_64 -hda dirtylog_test.img -boot c -m 4192 -net ...
>
> We show a relatively stable part to compare how much time is needed
> for the basic parts of dirty log ioctl.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[7].len=32768          278379     66398     64024
> slots[8].len=32768          181246       270       160
> slots[7].len=32768          263961     64673     64494
> slots[8].len=32768          181655       265       160
> slots[7].len=32768          263736     64701     64610
> slots[8].len=32768          182785       267       160
> slots[7].len=32768          260925     65360     65042
> slots[8].len=32768          182579       264       160
> slots[7].len=32768          267823     65915     65682
> slots[8].len=32768          186350       271       160
>
> At a glance, we know our optimization improved significantly compared
> to the original get dirty log ioctl. This is true for both get.opt and
> switch.opt. This has a really big impact for the personal KVM users who
> drive KVM in GUI mode on their usual PCs.
>
> Next, we notice that switch.opt improved a hundred nano seconds or so for
> these slots. Although this may sound a bit tiny improvement, we can feel
> this as a difference of GUI's responses like mouse reactions.
>    

100 ns... this is a bit on the low side (and if you can measure it 
interactively you have much better reflexes than I).

> To feel the difference, please try GUI on your PC with our patch series!
>    

No doubt get.org -> get.opt is measurable, but get.opt->switch.opt is 
problematic.  Have you tried profiling to see where the time is spent 
(well I can guess, clearing the write access from the sptes).

>
> 2. Live-migration test (4GB guest, write loop with 1GB buf)
>
> We also did a live-migration test.
>
>                             get.org   get.opt  switch.opt
>
> slots[0].len=655360         797383    261144    222181
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2186721   1965244   1842824
> slots[2].len=637534208     1433562   1012723   1031213
> slots[3].len=131072         216858       331       331
> slots[4].len=131072         121635       225       164
> slots[5].len=131072         120863       356       164
> slots[6].len=16777216       121746      1133       156
> slots[7].len=32768          120415       230       278
> slots[8].len=32768          120368       216       149
> slots[0].len=655360         806497    194710    223582
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2142922   1878025   1895369
> slots[2].len=637534208     1386512   1021309   1000345
> slots[3].len=131072         221118       459       296
> slots[4].len=131072         121516       272       166
> slots[5].len=131072         122652       244       173
> slots[6].len=16777216       123226     99185       149
> slots[7].len=32768          121803       457       505
> slots[8].len=32768          121586       216       155
> slots[0].len=655360         766113    211317    213179
> slots[1].len=3757047808    2155662   1974790   1842361
> slots[2].len=637534208     1481411   1020004   1031352
> slots[3].len=131072         223100       351       295
> slots[4].len=131072         122982       436       164
> slots[5].len=131072         122100       300       503
> slots[6].len=16777216       123653       779       151
> slots[7].len=32768          122617       284       157
> slots[8].len=32768          122737       253       149
>
> For slots other than 0,1,2 we can see the similar improvement.
>
> Considering the fact that switch.opt does not depend on the bitmap length
> except for kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(), this is the cause of some
> usec to msec time consumption: there might be some context switches.
>
> But note that this was done with the workload which dirtied the memory
> endlessly during the live-migration.
>
> In usual workload, the number of dirty pages varies a lot for each iteration
> and we should gain really a lot for relatively clean cases.
>    

Can you post such a test, for an idle large guest?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-10 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 175+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-04 12:56 [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:06 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-05-10 12:06   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:06   ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:06   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:26 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:26   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:26   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:26   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 10:11 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 10:11   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 10:11   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 10:11   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 15:55 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 15:55   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 15:55   ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 15:55   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Alexander Graf
2010-05-12  9:19 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:19   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:19   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:19   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-13 11:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:47   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:47   ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-13 11:47   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Avi Kivity
2010-05-17  9:06 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-17  9:06   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-17  9:06   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-17  9:06   ` [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-04 12:58 [RFC][PATCH 1/12 applied today] KVM: x86: avoid unnecessary bitmap Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:58 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/12 applied today] KVM: x86: avoid unnecessary bitmap allocation when memslot is clean Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:58 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 12:58 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/12 applied today] KVM: x86: avoid unnecessary bitmap Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:00 [RFC][PATCH 2/12] KVM: introduce slot level dirty state management Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:00 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:00 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:00 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:00 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:01 [RFC][PATCH 3/12] KVM: introduce wrapper functions to create and Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/12] KVM: introduce wrapper functions to create and destroy dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:01 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:01 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/12] KVM: introduce wrapper functions to create and Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 [RFC][PATCH 4/12] x86: introduce copy_in_user() for 32-bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 [RFC][PATCH 5/12] x86: introduce __set_bit() like function for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/12] x86: introduce __set_bit() like function for bitmaps in user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/12] x86: introduce __set_bit() like function for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:03 [RFC][PATCH 6/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce copy_in_user() for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce copy_in_user() for 32-bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:03 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce copy_in_user() for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:04 [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:04 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like function for bitmaps in user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:04 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:04 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:04 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 16:00 ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 16:00   ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like function for bitmaps in user space Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 16:00   ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 16:00   ` Alexander Graf
2010-05-11 16:00   ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like Alexander Graf
2010-05-12  9:25 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:25   ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like function for bitmaps in user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:25   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  9:25   ` [RFC][PATCH 7/12 not tested yet] PPC: introduce __set_bit() like Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:05 [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:05 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:05 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:05 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 15:03 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-04 15:03   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-04 15:03   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-04 15:03   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-04 16:08 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Avi Kivity
2010-05-04 16:08   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Avi Kivity
2010-05-04 16:08   ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-04 16:08   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Avi Kivity
2010-05-05  2:59 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-05  2:59   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-05  2:59   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-05  2:59   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-05  2:59   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-06 13:38 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-06 13:38   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-06 13:38   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-06 13:38   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-06 13:38   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 11:46 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 11:46   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 11:46   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 11:46   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 11:46   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:01 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:01   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:01   ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:01   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Avi Kivity
2010-05-10 12:01 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 12:01   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 12:01   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 12:01   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 12:01   ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-05-10 12:09 ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:09   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit offset macro Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:09   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:09   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-10 12:09   ` [RFC][PATCH resend 8/12] asm-generic: bitops: introduce le bit Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:06 [RFC][PATCH 9/12] KVM: introduce a wrapper function of Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 9/12] KVM: introduce a wrapper function of set_bit_user_non_atomic() Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:06 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:06 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 9/12] KVM: introduce a wrapper function of Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:07 [RFC][PATCH RFC 10/12] KVM: move dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:07 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:07 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:07 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11  3:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:28   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:28   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:28   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:28   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-12  6:27 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:27   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:27   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:27   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-13 11:05 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-13 11:05   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-13 11:05   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:08 [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:08 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:08 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:08 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11  3:43 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:43   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:43   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:43   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  3:43   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11  5:53 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11  5:53   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11  5:53   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11  5:53   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-11 14:07 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11 14:07   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11 14:07   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11 14:07   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-11 14:07   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Marcelo Tosatti
2010-05-12  5:59 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:03   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:03   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-12  6:03   ` [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:11 [RFC][PATCH 12/12 sample] qemu-kvm: use new API for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/12 sample] qemu-kvm: use new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:11 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-04 13:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/12 sample] qemu-kvm: use new API for Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-24  7:05 Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-24  7:05 ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-05-24  7:05 ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-06-01 10:55 ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-01 10:55   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-01 10:55   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-01 12:05 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-06-01 12:05   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-06-01 12:05   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: Takuya Yoshikawa
2010-06-01 12:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-01 12:54   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-01 12:54   ` Any comments? Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: Marcelo Tosatti

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com \
    --to=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.