On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > This one's obviously correct, will apply...
thanks! >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> index 9584d0f..95a3489 100644 >> --- a/drivers/kvm/svm.c >> +++ b/drivers/kvm/svm.c >> @@ -1459,11 +1459,6 @@ static void svm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> struct kvm_run *kvm_run) >> local_irq_enable(); >> - vcpu->guest_mode = 1; >> - if (vcpu->requests) >> - if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_TLB_FLUSH, &vcpu->requests)) >> - svm_flush_tlb(vcpu); >> - >> asm volatile ( >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 >> "push %%rbp; \n\t" >> >> > > Against which kvm is that? It isn't 2.6.24-rc, or kvm.git, or 2.6.23? I use the bleeding edge for userland and kernel, so kvm.git with "make sync". > Anyway, removing guest tlb flushing won't be good for the guest. Doesn't the common layer already take care of test_and_clearing that bitflag and calling kvm_x86_ops->tlb_flush before kvm_x86_ops->run in __vcpu_run? I thought it was an obsolete piece of code (besides it doesn't compile anyway it would need to be changed KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH) and it got re-introduced by mistake with a merging error in the last commit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
