bhyve: svm (amd-v) update

Willem Jan Withagen wjw at
Wed May 21 07:51:20 UTC 2014

On 2014-05-21 6:55, Anish wrote:
> Hi Willem,
>  > I patch against bhyve_SVM, because in the later case I get
> complaints that
> This patch is to sync bhyve_svm project branch with HEAD @263780, so you
> have to first merge HEAD to bhyve_svm. It will prompt you to resolve
> conflict in amdv.c, you should accept the changes that are in bhyve_svm
> and then apply the patch. bhyve HEAD exposed vlapic
> related interfaces along with some other changes, this patch will enable
> vlapic interfaces for SVM.

I'd be interested in the vlapic to if that helps the speed.
But you can help me a lot if you give me the SVN commands to do what you 
described above.

I can fetch a clean bhyve_svm brach, but that is as far as my svn goes.

I'll see if I can get my patches in as well.


> Thanks and regards,
> Anish
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw at
> <mailto:wjw at>> wrote:
>     On 15-5-2014 17:56, Anish wrote:
>      > Hi Andriy,
>      >  Thanks for your interest in SVM port of bhyve. I do have patch
>     to sync it
>      > to
> If
>      > patches looks good to you, we can submit it. I have been testing
>     it on
>      > Phenom box which lacks some of newer SVM features.
>     I don't quite understand against what this patch is?
>     Do I run it over head, to get SVM code into head?
>     Or do I patch against bhyve_SVM, because in the later case I get
>     complaints that
>               fatal error: 'vlapic_priv.h' file not found
>     # locate vlapic_priv.h
>     /usr/srcs/head/sys/amd64/vmm/io/vlapic_priv.h
>     So I'm guessing that is against head.
>     But last time I looked at head, more than just the interrupt stuff was
>     missing....
>     --WjW

More information about the freebsd-virtualization mailing list