On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 19:04 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct
> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> > mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
> > mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
> >
> > - if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> > - __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > - kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> > + if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> > + /* tlb entries deprecated */
> > + inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> > + } else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > + update_last = true;
> > + /* tlb entries polluted */
> > + inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
> > + vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> > + }
What about the following sequence on one CPU:
LPID 1, vcpu A
LPID 2, vcpu C
LPID 1, vcpu B
LPID 2, vcpu C doesn't invalidate
LPID 1, vcpu A doesn't invalidate
In the last line, vcpu A last ran on this cpu (oldpir matches), but LPID
2 last ran on this cpu (last_lpid_on_cpu does not match) -- but an
invalidation has never happened since vcpu B from LPID 1 ran on this
cpu.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
