qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] ARM: KVM: Enable in-kerne


From: Andrew Jones
Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] ARM: KVM: Enable in-kernel timers with user space gic
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:40:26 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:32:10PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 05:03 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:20:50PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On 14 November 2016 at 14:32, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > When running with KVM enabled, you can choose between emulating the
> > > > gic in kernel or user space. If the kernel supports in-kernel 
> > > > virtualization
> > > > of the interrupt controller, it will default to that. If not, if will
> > > > default to user space emulation.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately when running in user mode gic emulation, we miss out on
> > > > timer events which are only available from kernel space. This patch 
> > > > leverages
> > > > the new kernel/user space pending line synchronization for those timer 
> > > > events.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <address@hidden>
> > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> > > 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I probably missed a refresh of this patch, but as I didn't see anything,
> > I picked this one up today in order to test the KVM support recently
> > merged. Tweaking this patch a bit to fit the new ABI allowed me to
> > instantiate a KVM guest without the in-kernel irqchip (tested on a
> > mustang). So, FWIW, this is report of a successful test. Is there a
> > refreshed version of this patch someone can point me to, which I should
> > test instead?
> 
> Sorry, this did fall the cracks way too many times now. I've sent a respin
> that hopefully is slightly more future proof than this RFC :)
> 
> If your tests passed with this patch, please extend them to also cover SMP
> support, as that was broken with this RFC.

Indeed. I retested with the old version and now see that secondaries were
not booting, but they are with the new version.

Thanks,
drew



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]