Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > 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". > >
Well, I can't find anything like that it my tree. Maybe something's stale? >> 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? It does. > 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. > We're definitely looking at different trees. -- Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
