On 2011-04-26 06:50, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:15:20 +0200
Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Sorry, I did not test on x86_32.
Introducing a wrapper function with ifdef would be the best way?
Maybe you could also add the missing 64-bit get_user for x86-32. Given
On 04/25/2011 11:04 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
+
+ ptep_user = (pt_element_t __user *)((void *)host_addr + offset);
+ if (get_user(pte, ptep_user)) {
This doesn't work for x86-32: pte is 64 bit, but get_user is only
defined up to 32 bit on that
On 04/26/2011 10:45 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-04-26 09:42, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/25/2011 11:04 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
+
+ptep_user = (pt_element_t __user *)((void *)host_addr +
offset);
+if (get_user(pte, ptep_user)) {
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:34:57 +0200
Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Google said that there was a similar talk on LKML in 2004.
On that threads, Linus explained how to tackle on the 64-bit get_user
implementation. But I could not see what happened after that.
Mmh, maybe the kernel
On 04/26/2011 05:40 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:34:57 +0200
Jan Kiszkajan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Google said that there was a similar talk on LKML in 2004.
On that threads, Linus explained how to tackle on the 64-bit get_user
implementation. But I could not
Please post a simple patch that uses two get_user()s for that case
(64-bit pte on 32-bit host). Then work with the x86 tree to see if
they'll accept 64-bit get_user(), and once they do, we can go back to a
simple get_user() again.
btw, I think we can use __get_user() here since the
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:54:24 +0300
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
Please post a simple patch that uses two get_user()s for that case
(64-bit pte on 32-bit host). Then work with the x86 tree to see if
they'll accept 64-bit get_user(), and once they do, we can go back to a
simple
On 04/26/2011 06:13 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Please post a simple patch that uses two get_user()s for that case
(64-bit pte on 32-bit host). Then work with the x86 tree to see if
they'll accept 64-bit get_user(), and once they do, we can go back to a
simple get_user() again.
btw,
On 04/26/2011 07:26 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:54:24 +0300
Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
Please post a simple patch that uses two get_user()s for that case
(64-bit pte on 32-bit host). Then work with the x86 tree to see if
they'll accept 64-bit get_user(), and
On 2011-04-21 17:34, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
This patch optimizes the guest page table walk by using get_user()
instead of copy_from_user().
With this patch applied, paging64_walk_addr_generic() has become
about 0.5us to 1.0us faster
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:04:43 +0200
Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
+
+ ptep_user = (pt_element_t __user *)((void *)host_addr + offset);
+ if (get_user(pte, ptep_user)) {
This doesn't work for x86-32: pte is 64 bit, but get_user is
On 2011-04-25 10:32, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:04:43 +0200
Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
+
+ ptep_user = (pt_element_t __user *)((void *)host_addr + offset);
+ if (get_user(pte, ptep_user)) {
This doesn't work
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:15:20 +0200
Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de wrote:
Sorry, I did not test on x86_32.
Introducing a wrapper function with ifdef would be the best way?
Maybe you could also add the missing 64-bit get_user for x86-32. Given
that we have a corresponding put_user, I
On 04/21/2011 06:34 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawayoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
This patch optimizes the guest page table walk by using get_user()
instead of copy_from_user().
With this patch applied, paging64_walk_addr_generic() has become
about 0.5us to 1.0us faster on
14 matches
Mail list logo
