On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:38:30 -0500 Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti<mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 11:06:38AM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > >> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 08:22 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 19:18 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Dustin Kirkland<kirkland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Mark McLoughlin<markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 12:31 -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > >> > > >>> qemu-kvm: fix segfault when running kvm without /dev/kvm, falling back > >> > > >>> to non-accelerated mode > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> We're seeing segfaults on systems without access to /dev/kvm. It > >> > > >>> looks like the global kvm_allowed is being set just a little too late > >> > > >>> in vl.c. This patch moves the kvm initialization a bit higher in the > >> > > >>> vl.c main, just after options processing, and solves the segfaults. > >> > > >>> We're carrying this patch in Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha. Please apply > >> > > >>> upstream, or advise if and why this might not be the optimal solution. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Ah discussion about an alternative fix for this fizzled out recently: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg19890.html > >> > > > > >> > > > Ah, thanks Mark. In that thread, I found Daniel's suggestion the most > >> > > > reasonable, and user-friendly: > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrange<berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> Well, we could go for logic like: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> * No arg given => try kvm, try kqemu, try tcg > >> > > >> * --accelmode arg given => try $arg, and fail if unavailable > >> > > >> > >> > > >> then libvirt would simply always supply --accelmode for all VMs, > >> > > >> while people running qemu manually would get best available > >> > > I sent some patches to do that, but they were incomplete, and I was > >> > > preempted by something else. > >> > > If you want, you can wait for my cycles to come back, or pick from where I left > >> > >> Thanks for the pointer, Glauber. My cycles a bit constrained too, but > >> I'll have a look when I get a chance. > >> > >> > In the meantime, can we commit to stable-0.11 either Dustin's fix or > >> > this: > >> > > >> > http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=qemu-fedora.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa1620047b > >> > >> +1. We're looking for something agreeable in stable-0.11, that solves > >> the segfault and proceeds without VT acceleration. > > > > Dustin, > > > > Can you please resend the patch with the suggestion i made earlier, for > > stable-0.11? > > Sure, Marcelo. It's attached. > > I tested it, and it still does avoid the segfault. > > Luiz, could you re-test this patch on your side too? I'm getting rejections, are you sure it's against upstream? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
