From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Lieven Subject: Re: Live Migration of 32-bit Linux guest broken since 2.6.35-rc2 Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:44:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4C0E492F.6060203@dlh.net> References: <215BBDE4-B30E-4E55-8AC7-3B7C25662FAC@dlh.net> <4C0E09C0.9060300@dlh.net> <4C0E29B6.7060302@redhat.com> <4C0E2A1E.6080609@redhat.com> <4C0E2ECC.5090806@redhat.com> <4C0E3C46.30901@dlh.net> <4C0E3CD5.4070202@redhat.com> <4C0E4576.8030609@dlh.net> <4C0E46ED.5030305@redhat.com> <4C0E47C3.1050409@dlh.net> <4C0E484D.4060609@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from zion.dlh.net ([91.198.192.1]:39005 "EHLO mail.dlh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755143Ab0FHNo2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:44:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C0E484D.4060609@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/08/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Lieven wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 06/08/2010 04:28 PM, Peter Lieven wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> i will retry the case later today and send info register output. >>>>>> what is the recommended value for nx (and why)? >>>>> >>>>> Enabled (so you get no-execute memory protection). >>>> >>>> do you have a guideline which flags should be identical to ensure=20 >>>> proper live migration? >>>> i would like to do an automatic compare before life migration to=20 >>>> avoid crashes. >>> >>> All of them [1]. If you have an asymmetric machine, you can disabl= e=20 >>> those flags with the -cpu switch. >>> >>> Note the default qemu cpu disables many flags, so if one machine ha= s=20 >>> sse4.2 and the other doesn't, migration will still work without=20 >>> disabling anything. >> which cpu model do you suggest for 4 core xeon cpus? -cpu host ? > > -cpu host is good if you have identical machines and don't plan to ad= d=20 > new ones. i will likely add new ones, but my plan would be to use qemu64 and then= =20 add all flags manually that are common to all cpus in the pool. would that be safe? br, peter > >> how important is the match of the virtualization extensions? > > The virtualization extensions on Intel aren't exposed to the guest, s= o=20 > they don't need to match. > --=20 Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen/Kind Regards Peter Lieven =2E....................................................................= =2E.................................... KAMP Netzwerkdienste GmbH Vestische Str. 89-91 | 46117 Oberhausen Tel: +49 (0) 208.89 402-50 | Fax: +49 (0) 208.89 402-40 mailto:pl@kamp.de | http://www.kamp.de Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Heiner Lante | Michael Lante Amtsgericht Duisburg | HRB Nr. 12154 USt-Id-Nr.: DE 120607556 =2E....................................................................= =2E...................................=20