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 rmap_write_protect
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 problem if guest
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 xiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
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
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 writable spte
+
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 xiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 20 +---
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11
