On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 18:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small detail
> > in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
> > open coded the e
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:17 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> >
> > There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
> > described.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppc&m=122154653905212&w=2
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:43 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ? And yes, we
> > definitely need an enabling HV call, ie, we stick to traps until
> it's
>
> On PPC32 openbios is somewhere up there. On PPC64 openbios stays where
> it was on PPC32,
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:39 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Oh so we could have the emulation code mapped into the guest and could
> just jump there from our trampline code, so all page faults and other
> fun traps still work.
>
> That'd be nice :-)
We can put -some- code in there yes, but
On 10.07.2009, at 11:39, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:18 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
The only problem I see is that the firmware lives in the high 4k, so
we'd have to have some sort of enabling HV-call too.
What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ? An
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:18 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> The only problem I see is that the firmware lives in the high 4k, so
> we'd have to have some sort of enabling HV-call too.
What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ? And yes, we
definitely need an enabling HV call, ie, we sti
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:17 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> >
> > There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
> > described.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppc&m=122154653905212&w=2
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
> described.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppc&m=122154653905212&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppc&m=122154657905306&w=2
>
Interesting. Any reason
> -Original Message-
> From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 4:43 PM
> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; Hollis Blanchard; Avi Kivity
> Subje
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 10:42 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> IMHO paravirt stuff can be really useful, but should stay in the
> guest. I don't really like the idea of adding binary patching of
> guests in the hypervisor more than for dcbz where I didn't see another
> way to do it.
>
I wasn't
Hi Ben,
On 10.07.2009, at 10:10, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small
detail
in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
open coded the emulation of
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small detail
> in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
> open coded the emulation of SPRG0..3, but 4...7 are handled
> in kvmppc_core_emulate_mtspr(
12 matches
Mail list logo
