On 21.07.2010, at 00:22, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> I'm trying to speed up the process of loading kernel and initrd.
>>
>> I found that the main loop which loads these into qemu memory does it
>> via executing in the guest:
>>
>> rep insb
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I'm trying to speed up the process of loading kernel and initrd.
>
> I found that the main loop which loads these into qemu memory does it
> via executing in the guest:
>
> rep insb (%dx),%es:(%edi)
>
> In other words, reading it byte-a
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 04:40:28PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Which remind me that ad-hoc DMA interface should be discoverable by a
> guest.
Judging by 'git annotate' this interface has already been extended 4
times without requiring this to be discoverable. However I will add
an extra config b
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:15:16PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >>> Tha
On 07/19/2010 11:11 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:03AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 07/19/2010 09:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:45:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 07/19/2010 02:33 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 05:47:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:11:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > And there are such that cause cpu to stall for 6.5 seconds when you do
> > io to them? I never said that we should implement ISA or PCI device, I
> > don't know wh
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:11:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> And there are such that cause cpu to stall for 6.5 seconds when you do
> io to them? I never said that we should implement ISA or PCI device, I
> don't know why you bring them here.
Where is "6.5 seconds" coming from? That is the *to
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:03AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/19/2010 09:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:45:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 07/19/2010 02:33 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On 07/19/2010 09:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:45:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 07/19/2010 02:33 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:52:23AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/19/2010 04:15 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>On 19.07.2010, at 11:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones w
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:45:58AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/19/2010 02:33 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>That what I am warring about too. If we are ad
On 07/19/2010 04:15 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 11:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
virt-install is another program that uses explicit -in
On 07/19/2010 02:33 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have to be
sure such device can actually exist on
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 02:06:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:15:43PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > That what we are talking about, no? We are trying to find faster way to
> > load kernel/initrd and stay architectural. Honestly I would expect much
> > greater spe
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:15:43PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> That what we are talking about, no? We are trying to find faster way to
> load kernel/initrd and stay architectural. Honestly I would expect much
> greater speedup from Richard's approach like 2 seconds vs 8 seconds. It
> is hard to ju
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 11:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 11:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02:54AM +0200, Alex
On 19.07.2010, at 11:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 11:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 11:00, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:19:22PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Vcpu executes "in %ax". Next instruction is executed 6 seconds later.
> All timers that should have been processed during this time fire at the
> same moment triggering all kind of timeouts. Think about watchdog that
> should be writte
On 19.07.2010, at 11:15, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 11:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
virt-install is another program that uses expli
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 11:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 11:00, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Alex
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Richard, what does kvm_stat tell you while loading the initrd? Are
> there a lot of PIO requests or are we simply looping inside qemu
> code?
The two attached files were made by running kvm_stat -l > /tmp/...
during a single run sta
On 19.07.2010, at 11:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 11:00, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 10:48, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 11:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> virt-install is another program that uses explicit -initrd.
> >>
> > Installation takes a lot of t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 11:00, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 10:48, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> Were there DMA capable devices back in
On 19.07.2010, at 11:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> virt-install is another program that uses explicit -initrd.
>>
> Installation takes a lot of time. Saving 1 second there will not be
> noticeable. And during lifetime of inst
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:40:41AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:55:33AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > Why not put then on
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
[...]
OK, it's early in the morning and I can't do maths. But we're still
asking a big increase in complexity versus optimizing something which
is just slow in qemu at the moment.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group,
On 19.07.2010, at 11:00, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 10:48, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>>
Were there DMA capable devices back in ISA times? There must be. If so, we
can just take a look at what they do an
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 10:48, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:41:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 10:30, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alex
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:40:41AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:55:33AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Why not put then on cdrom or disk?
> >
> > It simplifies device and mountpoint enumeration not
On 19.07.2010, at 10:48, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:41:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 10:30, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:41:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 10:30, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes and no. It sounds nice at first, but doesn'
On 19.07.2010, at 10:30, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>> Yes and no. It sounds nice at first, but doesn't quite fit. There are two
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) We need a new PCI ID
> We have
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:55:33AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Why not put then on cdrom or disk?
>
> It simplifies device and mountpoint enumeration not to have a separate
> disk. It would also mean we couldn't use standard
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:55:33AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Why not put then on cdrom or disk?
It simplifies device and mountpoint enumeration not to have a separate
disk. It would also mean we couldn't use standard Fedora paths, or
we'd have to have bind-mount /bin etc on to the disk mount p
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:57AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 10:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alex
On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:57AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 10:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:57AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 10:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alex
On 19.07.2010, at 10:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Rich
On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapo
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:44:16AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:33:12AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > That what I am warr
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> That what I am warring about too. If
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:33:12AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have to be
> > > sure such device
On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have to be
>>> sure such device can actually exist o
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have to be
> > sure such device can actually exist on real hw too otherwise we may have
> > problems l
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have to be
> sure such device can actually exist on real hw too otherwise we may have
> problems later.
I don't understand why the constraints of real h/w have anything to d
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:32:53PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 18.07.2010, at 22:09, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:26:57PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 17.07.2010, at 11:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Rich
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:26:57PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 17.07.2010, at 11:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> I understand from the git logs that fw_cfg was added because the old
> >> way was to load kernel &
On 18.07.2010, at 22:09, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:26:57PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 17.07.2010, at 11:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I understand from the git logs that fw_cfg was ad
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:26:57PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 17.07.2010, at 11:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> I understand from the git logs that fw_cfg was added because the old
> >> way was to load kernel & initrd
On 17.07.2010, at 11:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> I understand from the git logs that fw_cfg was added because the old
>> way was to load kernel & initrd into RAM directly, but this didn't
>> work because SeaBIOS would clea
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I understand from the git logs that fw_cfg was added because the old
> way was to load kernel & initrd into RAM directly, but this didn't
> work because SeaBIOS would clear the RAM, clobbering kernel & initrd.
> Could we change t
I'm trying to speed up the process of loading kernel and initrd.
I found that the main loop which loads these into qemu memory does it
via executing in the guest:
rep insb (%dx),%es:(%edi)
In other words, reading it byte-at-a-time from an emulated IO port.
This is very slow[1] when your initrd
55 matches
Mail list logo
