On 11/18/2010 05:32 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> There is no need to flush on sync_page path since the guest is
> >> responsible for it.
> >>
> >
> > If we don't, the next rmap_write_protect() will incorrectly decide that
> > there's no need to flush tlbs.
> >
>
> Maybe it's not a
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:12:56PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 11:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> >>> set_pte:
> >>> update_spte(sptep, spte);
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * If we overwrite a writable spte with a read-only one we
> >>> + * should flush remote TLBs. Otherwise
On 11/17/2010 11:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> set_pte:
>>> update_spte(sptep, spte);
>>> +/*
>>> + * If we overwrite a writable spte with a read-only one we
>>> + * should flush remote TLBs. Otherwise rmap_write_protect
>>> + * will find a read-only spte, even though the wr
On 11/17/2010 05:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:10:50PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
We just need flush tlb if overwrite a writable spte with a read-only
one.
And we should move this operation to set_spte() for sync_page path
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
---
arch/x
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:10:50PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> We just need flush tlb if overwrite a writable spte with a read-only
> one.
>
> And we should move this operation to set_spte() for sync_page path
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 20 +-
We just need flush tlb if overwrite a writable spte with a read-only
one.
And we should move this operation to set_spte() for sync_page path
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 20 +---
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86
