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
next prev parent 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.