On 20/04/2015 20:41, Jan Kiszka wrote:
If the guest pushes data for DMA into RAM, it may assume that it lands
there directly, without the need for explicit flushes, because it has
caching disabled - no?
Yes, but Intel IOMMUs can have snooping control and in this case you can
just set memory
2015-04-20 20:41+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 20:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:45+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2015-04-20 19:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20
On 2015-04-20 19:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2015-04-20 19:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
In case
On 2015-04-20 19:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
In case anyone wanted to reproduce, I used this as
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
In case anyone wanted to reproduce, I used this as a kvm-unit-test:
---
| [code]
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
In case anyone wanted to reproduce, I used this as a kvm-unit-test:
---
#include processor.h
#define NR_TOP_LOOPS 24
#define NR_MEM_LOOPS 10
#define MEM_ELEMENTS 1024
2015-04-20 19:16+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
Sorry, a zero is missing there ... they were 200 times slower.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached accesses were roughly 20x slower.
In case anyone wanted to reproduce, I used this as a kvm-unit-test:
---
#include processor.h
#define NR_TOP_LOOPS 24
2015-04-13 08:58+0200, Jan Kiszka:
When hardware supports the g_pat VMCB field, we can use it for emulating
the PAT configuration that the guest configures by writing to the
corresponding MSR.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
RFC because it is only compile-tested.
2015-04-20 19:45+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2015-04-20 19:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
Uncached
On 2015-04-20 20:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:45+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2015-04-20 19:33, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 19:21+0200, Jan Kiszka:
On 2015-04-20 19:16, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2015-04-20 18:14+0200, Radim Krčmář:
Tested-by: Radim
2015-04-13 08:58+0200, Jan Kiszka:
When hardware supports the g_pat VMCB field, we can use it for emulating
the PAT configuration that the guest configures by writing to the
corresponding MSR.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář rkrc...@redhat.com
When hardware supports the g_pat VMCB field, we can use it for emulating
the PAT configuration that the guest configures by writing to the
corresponding MSR.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
RFC because it is only compile-tested.
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 9 +
1 file
13 matches
Mail list logo
