* Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble))
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
@ 2015-06-26 11:27 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2015-06-26 11:32 ` Julien Grall
2015-06-26 12:06 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Vitaly Kuznetsov
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Cojocaru @ 2015-06-26 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2, xen-devel, edmund.h.white, xumengpanda, dgolomb,
lichong659, jtweaver, oleksandr.dmytryshyn, david.vrabel,
daniel.kiper, george.dunlap, jbeulich, chao.p.peng, yu.c.zhang,
wei.w.wang, feng.wu, ross.lagerwall, malcolm.crossley,
tiejun.chen, boris.ostrovsky, elena.ufimtseva, Vijaya.Kumar,
parth.dixit, andrii.tseglytskyi, suravee.suthikulpanit,
manishjaggi.oss, julien.grall, vijay.kilari, ian.campbell,
andrew.cooper3, vkuznets, ian.jackson, dslutz, jgross, olaf@
On 06/26/2015 02:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> * VM event patches (none)
> Add support for XSETBV vm_events,
> Support hybernating guests
> Support for VMCALL-based vm_events
> - Razvan Cojocaru
Again, the support for XSETBV vm_events has already been accepted.
V2 of the series has just been discussed today and I plan to submit V3
as early next week as possible.
Of course, it's not my place to judge the probability of the series
making it into the 4.6 release (although I'd obviously be very happy if
it did make it), but I don't think "none" is an accurate description of
the status. :)
Thanks,
Razvan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble))
2015-06-26 11:27 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
@ 2015-06-26 11:32 ` Julien Grall
2015-06-26 11:34 ` Razvan Cojocaru
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Julien Grall @ 2015-06-26 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Cojocaru; +Cc: Wei Liu, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Hi Razvan,
As suggested by Wei on the top of his mail [1], can you please CC only
relevant people and avoid to reply all?
Many thanks,
[1] (Note, please trim your quotes when replying, and also trim the CC
list if
necessary. You might also consider changing the subject line of your
reply to
"Status of FOO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update (X months reminder)")
On 26/06/2015 13:27, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 02:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
>> * VM event patches (none)
>> Add support for XSETBV vm_events,
>> Support hybernating guests
>> Support for VMCALL-based vm_events
>> - Razvan Cojocaru
>
> Again, the support for XSETBV vm_events has already been accepted.
>
> V2 of the series has just been discussed today and I plan to submit V3
> as early next week as possible.
>
> Of course, it's not my place to judge the probability of the series
> making it into the 4.6 release (although I'd obviously be very happy if
> it did make it), but I don't think "none" is an accurate description of
> the status. :)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Razvan
>
--
Julien Grall
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
2015-06-26 11:27 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
@ 2015-06-26 12:06 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2015-07-06 15:03 ` Wei Liu
2015-06-26 13:32 ` Jan Beulich
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov @ 2015-06-26 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2; +Cc: xen-devel
<wei.liu2@citrix.com> writes:
> * toolstack-based approach to pvhvm guest kexec (fair)
> also contains hypervisor side change, v6
> - Vitaly Kuznetsov
it is already "[PATCH v8 00/11] toolstack-assisted approach to
PVHVM guest kexec" waiting for reviews and (IMHO) 'ok' (as I think all
major concerns were addressed). The change is fairly isolated from
other parts of Xen so it shouldn't bring risks to the release.
Thanks,
--
Vitaly
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 12:06 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Vitaly Kuznetsov
@ 2015-07-06 15:03 ` Wei Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Wei Liu @ 2015-07-06 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov; +Cc: xen-devel, wei.liu2
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:06:05PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> <wei.liu2@citrix.com> writes:
>
> > * toolstack-based approach to pvhvm guest kexec (fair)
> > also contains hypervisor side change, v6
> > - Vitaly Kuznetsov
>
> it is already "[PATCH v8 00/11] toolstack-assisted approach to
> PVHVM guest kexec" waiting for reviews and (IMHO) 'ok' (as I think all
> major concerns were addressed). The change is fairly isolated from
> other parts of Xen so it shouldn't bring risks to the release.
>
The HV side patches are mostly not acked, i.e. they are not yet ready.
I'm sorry this series is not going to make 4.6 from my point of view.
:-/
Wei.
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Vitaly
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
2015-06-26 11:27 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
2015-06-26 12:06 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Vitaly Kuznetsov
@ 2015-06-26 13:32 ` Jan Beulich
2015-06-26 13:49 ` gnttab scalability and ticket locks status David Vrabel
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-06-26 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei.Liu2; +Cc: xen-devel
>>> On 26.06.15 at 13:16, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> * gnttab: improve scalability (good)
> - David Vrabel
This went in and passed the push gate already.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* gnttab scalability and ticket locks status
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 13:32 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-06-26 13:49 ` David Vrabel
2015-06-26 14:30 ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-26 13:50 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Andrew Cooper
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: David Vrabel @ 2015-06-26 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2, xen-devel, jbeulich, chao.p.peng, ian.campbell, jgross
On 26/06/15 12:16, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
>
> == Blocker ==
>
> == Hypervisor ==
>
> * gnttab: improve scalability (good)
> - David Vrabel
This is done.
> * Use ticket lock in hypervisor (good)
> - David Vrabel
This needs the reverts reverting which is currently pending on a kernel
update for ARM. If the kernel update doesn't turn up soon I think
ticket locks should be re-added anyway since the failure wasn't really
caused by the locking change (the netback bug had always been there).
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: gnttab scalability and ticket locks status
2015-06-26 13:49 ` gnttab scalability and ticket locks status David Vrabel
@ 2015-06-26 14:30 ` Ian Campbell
2015-06-26 15:38 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-06-26 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Vrabel; +Cc: jgross, xen-devel, wei.liu2, jbeulich, chao.p.peng
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:49 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 26/06/15 12:16, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> >
> > == Blocker ==
> >
> > == Hypervisor ==
> >
> > * gnttab: improve scalability (good)
> > - David Vrabel
>
> This is done.
>
> > * Use ticket lock in hypervisor (good)
> > - David Vrabel
>
> This needs the reverts reverting which is currently pending on a kernel
> update for ARM. If the kernel update doesn't turn up soon I think
> ticket locks should be re-added anyway since the failure wasn't really
> caused by the locking change (the netback bug had always been there).
As of flight 58875 the kernel is fixed everywhere we care about, I
think.
IOW I can't see a reason not to throw them back in right away.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: gnttab scalability and ticket locks status
2015-06-26 14:30 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-06-26 15:38 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-06-26 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Vrabel, Ian Campbell
Cc: Juergen Gross, chao.p.peng, wei.liu2, xen-devel
>>> On 26.06.15 at 16:30, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:49 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 26/06/15 12:16, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
>> >
>> > == Blocker ==
>> >
>> > == Hypervisor ==
>> >
>> > * gnttab: improve scalability (good)
>> > - David Vrabel
>>
>> This is done.
>>
>> > * Use ticket lock in hypervisor (good)
>> > - David Vrabel
>>
>> This needs the reverts reverting which is currently pending on a kernel
>> update for ARM. If the kernel update doesn't turn up soon I think
>> ticket locks should be re-added anyway since the failure wasn't really
>> caused by the locking change (the netback bug had always been there).
>
> As of flight 58875 the kernel is fixed everywhere we care about, I
> think.
>
> IOW I can't see a reason not to throw them back in right away.
Done.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 13:49 ` gnttab scalability and ticket locks status David Vrabel
@ 2015-06-26 13:50 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-06-26 14:45 ` Daniel Kiper
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2015-06-26 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2; +Cc: Xen-devel List
On 26/06/15 12:16, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> == Blocker ==
The unreversion of ticket locks is, IMO, a blocker to 4.6
The patches are good, and had actually managed to pass the push gate
before OSS tripped over an issue exposed by them in netback.
~Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 13:50 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Andrew Cooper
@ 2015-06-26 14:45 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-06-26 15:23 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Kiper @ 2015-06-26 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2; +Cc: xen-devel, jbeulich, andrew.cooper3
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:16:56PM +0100, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
[...]
> == Blocker ==
>
> == Hypervisor ==
[...]
> * Xen multiboot2-EFI support (ok)
> See http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg03962.html
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg03982.html
> - Daniel Kiper
I have finished all internal work this week. Now I am fully focusing on
this project. I taken into account all comments to v1 (there are left few
minor things which require some more work but they are not so important at
this stage). Currently I am working on Xen early boot code relocatability.
I have working PoC but Andrew and Jan have objections in regards to some
solutions used in it. It is related to %ebp register usage in general
but also command line parsing code. New solutions for these issues have
to be found. I am working on it but this is quite difficult.
Additionally, GRUB2 code should be reworked. PoC for new functionality works.
I think that we are not able to get this stuff into 4.6. All major issues
are solved (or at least we have working PoC) but there is not chance that
we could have GRUB2 changes accepted in 2 weeks (or at least have them ready
due to current work on Xen early boot code relocatability). During Xen
Hackathon we agreed that we should not accept Xen changes which require
multiboot2 changes which are not in GRUB2 upstream yet. So, first of all
we must try to get this changes into upstream and then get Xen patches.
Taking into account above, I think that this should not be a blocker for 4.6.
This task should be moved to 4.7 (or whatever will be next). I think that at
this stage of development inclusion in next release after 4.6 is possible.
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble))
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 14:45 ` Daniel Kiper
@ 2015-06-26 15:23 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2015-07-06 15:00 ` Wei Liu
2015-06-26 16:17 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Julien Grall
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Cojocaru @ 2015-06-26 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2, xen-devel, jbeulich, andrew.cooper3, Lengyel, Tamas
On 06/26/2015 02:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> * VM event patches (none)
> Add support for XSETBV vm_events,
> Support hybernating guests
> Support for VMCALL-based vm_events
> - Razvan Cojocaru
Since V2, there are now 3 more patches that we'd like to see in Xen
mainline at some point:
1. The patch we've originally submitted that computed the current
instruction length in order to be able to skip it completely (instead of
emulating it with dummy nop write operations) has been somewhat
controversial. To that end, we're now computing the instruction length
in the userspace application, and simply send the new EIP back to the HV
in the vm_event reply, so that skipping instructions can work without a
lot of code added to Xen.
2. In the past, we've aways disabled REP optimizations (forcing *reps to
1) when introspection is active. Tamas' work now gates this on
current->domain->arch.mem_access_emulate_enabled in
xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c. A side effect of that is that Windows HVM
guests tend to boot much slower. We'd like to add a dedicated libxc
function that enables / disables this pessimization explicitly.
3. And finally, our ARM team is using the new VMCALL-based hypercall and
have provided a patch that enables the vm_event on ARM. This will
require some work with Tamas since it is my suspicion that there's code
there that should become common between x86 and ARM and has been, at the
moment, more or less copied from x86 (basically xen/arch/arm/event.c and
xen/arch/arm/monitor.c).
The question is, would it be appropriate to add those patches to V3? And
if that's not a problem, how likely is that to affect the current series
getting in before the 4.6 release (that is, assuming that's a realistic
goal, seeing how the feature freeze is two weeks away)? Just trying to
make sure that I go about this the right way.
Thanks,
Razvan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble))
2015-06-26 15:23 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
@ 2015-07-06 15:00 ` Wei Liu
2015-07-06 15:05 ` Razvan Cojocaru
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Wei Liu @ 2015-07-06 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Cojocaru
Cc: Lengyel, Tamas, xen-devel, wei.liu2, jbeulich, andrew.cooper3
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:23:02PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 02:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> > * VM event patches (none)
> > Add support for XSETBV vm_events,
> > Support hybernating guests
> > Support for VMCALL-based vm_events
> > - Razvan Cojocaru
>
> Since V2, there are now 3 more patches that we'd like to see in Xen
> mainline at some point:
>
> 1. The patch we've originally submitted that computed the current
> instruction length in order to be able to skip it completely (instead of
> emulating it with dummy nop write operations) has been somewhat
> controversial. To that end, we're now computing the instruction length
> in the userspace application, and simply send the new EIP back to the HV
> in the vm_event reply, so that skipping instructions can work without a
> lot of code added to Xen.
>
> 2. In the past, we've aways disabled REP optimizations (forcing *reps to
> 1) when introspection is active. Tamas' work now gates this on
> current->domain->arch.mem_access_emulate_enabled in
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c. A side effect of that is that Windows HVM
> guests tend to boot much slower. We'd like to add a dedicated libxc
> function that enables / disables this pessimization explicitly.
>
> 3. And finally, our ARM team is using the new VMCALL-based hypercall and
> have provided a patch that enables the vm_event on ARM. This will
> require some work with Tamas since it is my suspicion that there's code
> there that should become common between x86 and ARM and has been, at the
> moment, more or less copied from x86 (basically xen/arch/arm/event.c and
> xen/arch/arm/monitor.c).
>
> The question is, would it be appropriate to add those patches to V3? And
> if that's not a problem, how likely is that to affect the current series
> getting in before the 4.6 release (that is, assuming that's a realistic
> goal, seeing how the feature freeze is two weeks away)? Just trying to
> make sure that I go about this the right way.
>
Not speaking from technical point of view but from the time scale point
of view, I don't think you should rush your 3 new patches at this stage.
You sent several patch series. I don't have the expertise or time to
keep track of all of them so I couldn't tell how feasible it is for them
to be ready for 4.6. I tend to say if they are not nearly all acked,
they would need to wait until 4.7.
Wei.
>
> Thanks,
> Razvan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble))
2015-07-06 15:00 ` Wei Liu
@ 2015-07-06 15:05 ` Razvan Cojocaru
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Cojocaru @ 2015-07-06 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei Liu; +Cc: Lengyel, Tamas, xen-devel, jbeulich, andrew.cooper3
On 07/06/2015 06:00 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:23:02PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 06/26/2015 02:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
>>> * VM event patches (none)
>>> Add support for XSETBV vm_events,
>>> Support hybernating guests
>>> Support for VMCALL-based vm_events
>>> - Razvan Cojocaru
>>
>> Since V2, there are now 3 more patches that we'd like to see in Xen
>> mainline at some point:
>>
>> 1. The patch we've originally submitted that computed the current
>> instruction length in order to be able to skip it completely (instead of
>> emulating it with dummy nop write operations) has been somewhat
>> controversial. To that end, we're now computing the instruction length
>> in the userspace application, and simply send the new EIP back to the HV
>> in the vm_event reply, so that skipping instructions can work without a
>> lot of code added to Xen.
>>
>> 2. In the past, we've aways disabled REP optimizations (forcing *reps to
>> 1) when introspection is active. Tamas' work now gates this on
>> current->domain->arch.mem_access_emulate_enabled in
>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c. A side effect of that is that Windows HVM
>> guests tend to boot much slower. We'd like to add a dedicated libxc
>> function that enables / disables this pessimization explicitly.
>>
>> 3. And finally, our ARM team is using the new VMCALL-based hypercall and
>> have provided a patch that enables the vm_event on ARM. This will
>> require some work with Tamas since it is my suspicion that there's code
>> there that should become common between x86 and ARM and has been, at the
>> moment, more or less copied from x86 (basically xen/arch/arm/event.c and
>> xen/arch/arm/monitor.c).
>>
>> The question is, would it be appropriate to add those patches to V3? And
>> if that's not a problem, how likely is that to affect the current series
>> getting in before the 4.6 release (that is, assuming that's a realistic
>> goal, seeing how the feature freeze is two weeks away)? Just trying to
>> make sure that I go about this the right way.
>>
>
> Not speaking from technical point of view but from the time scale point
> of view, I don't think you should rush your 3 new patches at this stage.
>
> You sent several patch series. I don't have the expertise or time to
> keep track of all of them so I couldn't tell how feasible it is for them
> to be ready for 4.6. I tend to say if they are not nearly all acked,
> they would need to wait until 4.7.
Of course. Thanks for the reply! Will keep the current series as it is,
and not add anything new (I'll just keep addressing reviews).
Thanks,
Razvan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 15:23 ` Status of VM event patches (Was: Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)) Razvan Cojocaru
@ 2015-06-26 16:17 ` Julien Grall
2015-06-30 2:30 ` Status of COLO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update) Yang Hongyang
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Julien Grall @ 2015-06-26 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, Stefano Stabellini
On 26/06/2015 13:16, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> (Note, please trim your quotes when replying, and also trim the CC list if
> necessary. You might also consider changing the subject line of your reply to
> "Status of FOO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update (X months reminder)")
>
> Hi all
Hi Wei,
> === Hypervisor ARM ===
[..]
> * ARM GICv2 on GICv3 support (none)
v2 sent. Can be moved to ok
> - Julien Grall
> - Vijay Kilari
As said on the previous development update, Vijay is not involved to
this patch.
> == Linux ==
>
> * VPMU - 'perf' support in Linux (ok)
> Depends on Xen patches
> Acked by David Vrabel
> - Boris Ostrovsky
>
> * vNUMA in Linux (ok)
> v6 posted
> - Wei Liu
>
> * COLO Agent in Linux (fair)
> - Gui Jianfeng
> - Yang Hongyang
> - Dong, Eddie
>
> * ARM64 - support 64K guest (none)
V1 sent. Reworking the code for the v2.
It could be moved into (fair).
> - Julien Grall
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Status of COLO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 16:17 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Julien Grall
@ 2015-06-30 2:30 ` Yang Hongyang
2015-07-01 6:12 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-01 10:01 ` Yu, Zhang
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Yang Hongyang @ 2015-06-30 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2
Cc: Lars Kurth, Ian Campbell, Wen Congyang, Gui Jianfeng,
Jiang Yunhong, Dong Eddie, Andrew Cooper, xen-devel, Ian Jackson
On 06/26/2015 07:16 PM, wei.liu2@citrix.com wrote:
> (Note, please trim your quotes when replying, and also trim the CC list if
> necessary. You might also consider changing the subject line of your reply to
> "Status of FOO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update (X months reminder)")
>
[...]
>
> == Xen toolstack ==
>
> * Split libxc into multiple libraries (fair)
> - Ian Campbell
>
> * Migration v2 (libxl) (fair)
> - Andrew Cooper
>
[...]
>
> * COarse-grain LOck-stepping Virtual Machines in Xen (ok)
> RFC v5 posted
Since v6 got some amount of review comments, and v7 already posted:
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg03991.html
I think the status should be 'good'
> - Wen Congyang
> - Gui Jianfeng
> - Yang Hongyang
> - Dong, Eddie
>
> * tmem migrationv2 patches. (none)
> - Bob Liu & Andrew Cooper & David Vrabel
>
[...]
>
> == Completed ==
>
> * Import xenanalyze in tree (done)
> - Olaf Hering
>
> * OSSTest: upgrade to Debian Jessie (none)
> - Wei Liu
>
> * OSSTest: stubdom test case (fair)
> - Wei Liu
>
> * Remus using migration-v2 (good)
> RFC posted - depends on v6 of 'New Migration'
> - Yang Hongyang
This state is 'done'.
--
Thanks,
Yang.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-30 2:30 ` Status of COLO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update) Yang Hongyang
@ 2015-07-01 6:12 ` Chen, Tiejun
2015-07-01 10:17 ` Julien Grall
2015-07-01 10:01 ` Yu, Zhang
10 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Chen, Tiejun @ 2015-07-01 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wei.liu2, xen-devel, edmund.h.white, xumengpanda, dgolomb,
lichong659, jtweaver, oleksandr.dmytryshyn, david.vrabel,
daniel.kiper, george.dunlap, rcojocaru, jbeulich, chao.p.peng,
yu.c.zhang, wei.w.wang, feng.wu, ross.lagerwall, malcolm.crossley,
boris.ostrovsky, elena.ufimtseva, Vijaya.Kumar, parth.dixit,
andrii.tseglytskyi, suravee.suthikulpanit, manishjaggi.oss,
julien.grall, vijay.kilari, ian.campbell, andrew.cooper3,
vkuznets, ian.jackson, dslutz, jgross
>
> * RMRR fix (fair)
> RFC posted
Wei,
I think this should be ok or good based on current status, and also
should remove "RFC" here.
Thanks
Tiejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-07-01 6:12 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-01 10:17 ` Julien Grall
2015-07-02 8:35 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Julien Grall @ 2015-07-01 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiejun Chen; +Cc: Wei Liu, xen-devel
Hi Tiejun,
As suggested by Wei on the top of his mail [1], can you please CC only
relevant people and avoid to reply all?
Many thanks,
[1] (Note, please trim your quotes when replying, and also trim the CC
list if
necessary. You might also consider changing the subject line of your
reply to
"Status of FOO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update (X months reminder)")
On 01/07/15 07:12, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>
>> * RMRR fix (fair)
>> RFC posted
>
> Wei,
>
> I think this should be ok or good based on current status, and also
> should remove "RFC" here.
>
> Thanks
> Tiejun
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
--
Julien Grall
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-07-01 10:17 ` Julien Grall
@ 2015-07-02 8:35 ` Ian Campbell
2015-07-02 8:51 ` Razvan Cojocaru
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-07-02 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wei Liu, xen-devel
On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 11:17 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> As suggested by Wei on the top of his mail [1], can you please CC only
> relevant people and avoid to reply all?
It seems that many people are unable to follow these simple
instructions.
Wei, perhaps you could stop CCing people who inappropriately do not trim
their quotes or the CC list in the future. If they cannot do us the
courtesy of doing so I don't see why they should receive a courtesy copy
of the status mail.
A somewhat less aggressive approach might be to use Bcc instead Cc for
the bulk of people (i.e. anyone who needn't be cc-d on every reply). The
failure case of someone who cannot read simple instructions then becomes
a lack of CCs rather than a plethora of unwanted Ccs.
Ian.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> [1] (Note, please trim your quotes when replying, and also trim the CC
> list if
> necessary. You might also consider changing the subject line of your
> reply to
> "Status of FOO (Was: Xen 4.6 Development Update (X months reminder)")
>
> On 01/07/15 07:12, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >>
> >> * RMRR fix (fair)
> >> RFC posted
> >
> > Wei,
> >
> > I think this should be ok or good based on current status, and also
> > should remove "RFC" here.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tiejun
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-07-02 8:35 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-07-02 8:51 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2015-07-02 10:32 ` Dario Faggioli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Cojocaru @ 2015-07-02 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell, Wei Liu, xen-devel
Hello Ian, Julien,
On 07/02/2015 11:35 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 11:17 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> As suggested by Wei on the top of his mail [1], can you please CC only
>> relevant people and avoid to reply all?
>
> It seems that many people are unable to follow these simple
> instructions.
>
> Wei, perhaps you could stop CCing people who inappropriately do not trim
> their quotes or the CC list in the future. If they cannot do us the
> courtesy of doing so I don't see why they should receive a courtesy copy
> of the status mail.
>
> A somewhat less aggressive approach might be to use Bcc instead Cc for
> the bulk of people (i.e. anyone who needn't be cc-d on every reply). The
> failure case of someone who cannot read simple instructions then becomes
> a lack of CCs rather than a plethora of unwanted Ccs.
First of all, let me apologize for doing this in the past, I'll
certainly remember to not let it happen again.
Second, I'd like to point out that, while I cannot speak for everyone,
and so maybe it's just me, I find this statement: "please trim your
quotes when replying, and also trim the CC list if necessary" a bit
ambiguous.
The quotes part is obvious (and not that many people have ommited to do
that), but to be honest I haven't been clear on who is supposed to be in
the trimmed CC list: the maintainers of the code I'm touching with my
series and Wei? There doesn't seem to be a clear rule about who should
be replied to (or maybe there is and I've missed it? If so, could you
please point it out?). Maybe clearing this up could help with this
problem in the future.
Thanks,
Razvan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-07-02 8:51 ` Razvan Cojocaru
@ 2015-07-02 10:32 ` Dario Faggioli
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Dario Faggioli @ 2015-07-02 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Cojocaru; +Cc: Wei Liu, Ian Campbell, xen-devel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1777 bytes --]
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 11:51 +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 07/02/2015 11:35 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > It seems that many people are unable to follow these simple
> > instructions.
>
> The quotes part is obvious (and not that many people have ommited to do
> that), but to be honest I haven't been clear on who is supposed to be in
> the trimmed CC list: the maintainers of the code I'm touching with my
> series and Wei?
>
Exactly.
It's the 'interested parties' that should be Cc-ed, which, 99% of the
times, is exactly what you just said:
- the maintainers because, well, they are the maintainers, they know
the code, they most likely know your series and will be able to
engage in a conversation on whether the estimation is correct or not;
- the release manager, since we're discussing release;
- there might me more people, such as, people that have been involved
in the review process, despite not being maintainers, or... no,
that's all that comes to my mind.
So, trim to such a set, and you'll make most of the people happy, I bet.
> There doesn't seem to be a clear rule about who should
> be replied to (or maybe there is and I've missed it? If so, could you
> please point it out?). Maybe clearing this up could help with this
> problem in the future.
>
I think it was pretty obvious. I guess it would not harm to add a line
making this crystal clear in the mail, but it's Wei's call to judge
whether that is really necessary.
Regards,
Dario
--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble)
2015-06-26 11:16 Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) wei.liu2
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-01 6:12 ` Xen 4.6 Development Update (2 WEEKS TO FREEZE, important information in preamble) Chen, Tiejun
@ 2015-07-01 10:01 ` Yu, Zhang
10 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Yu, Zhang @ 2015-07-01 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel, Paul Durrant, Malcolm Crossley
> = Prognosis =
>
> The states are: none -> fair -> ok -> good -> done
>
> none - nothing yet
> fair - still working on it, patches are prototypes or RFC
> ok - patches posted, acting on review
> good - some last minute pieces
> done - all done, might have bugs
>
> * Intel GVT-g (none)
> requires refactoring ioreq-server, fixing 16-byte MMIO emulation
> and optional PV IOMMU support
> - Yu, Zhang
Hi wei, following are status of Intel GVT-g:
1> ioreq-server refactor: fair. patch sent out by me, but not much
comments.
2> 16-byte MMIO emulation: I believe status is good, several patch
versions sent out by Paul.
3> PV IOMMU: new draft in discussion. Malcolm Crossley has been
working on it. So status should be none or fair?
Thanks
Yu
>
> * Porting Intel P-state driver to Xen (fair)
> - Wang, Wei
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread