, "Christian
> Borntraeger" , "Cornelia Huck"
> , "Paul Mackerras"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:45:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: fix guest_mode optimization in
> kvm_make_all_cpus_request()
>
> > void kvm_reload_remot
2017-04-11 13:25+0800, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 07/04/2017 05:02, James Hogan wrote:
>> - you'll no longer get IPIs if its in EXITING_GUEST_MODE (i.e. if you
>> get two of these in quick succession only the first will wait for the
>> IPI, which might work as long as they're already serialised but it
, "Christian
> Borntraeger" , "Cornelia Huck"
> , "Paul Mackerras"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:31:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: fix guest_mode optimization in
> kvm_make_all_cpus_request()
>
> 2017-04-11 10:37+0100, James Hoga
2017-04-11 10:37+0100, James Hogan:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:25:04PM +0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 07/04/2017 05:02, James Hogan wrote:
>> > This presumably changes the behaviour on x86, from != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
>> > to == IN_GUEST_MODE. so:
>> > - you'll no longer get IPIs
Hi Drew,
Note, MIPS doesn't directly use kicks as far as I can tell, only the TLB
flush request, so what I say below is in the context of requests where
the IPI is waited for.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I'm actually thinking we should do away with kvm_arch_vcp
Hi Paolo,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:25:04PM +0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/04/2017 05:02, James Hogan wrote:
> > This presumably changes the behaviour on x86, from != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
> > to == IN_GUEST_MODE. so:
> > - you'll no longer get IPIs if its in READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES (which
>
On 07/04/2017 05:02, James Hogan wrote:
> This presumably changes the behaviour on x86, from != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
> to == IN_GUEST_MODE. so:
> - you'll no longer get IPIs if its in READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES (which
> MIPS also now uses when accessing mappings outside of guest mode and
> depe
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:02:15PM +0100, James Hogan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:20:51PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > We have kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() to decide whether the target cpu
> > needs to be kicked. The previous condition was wrong, because
> > architectures that don't use v
On 04/06/2017 10:20 PM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> We have kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() to decide whether the target cpu
> needs to be kicked. The previous condition was wrong, because
> architectures that don't use vcpu->mode would not get interrupts and
> also suboptimal, because it sent IPI in cases
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:20:51PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> We have kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() to decide whether the target cpu
> needs to be kicked. The previous condition was wrong, because
> architectures that don't use vcpu->mode would not get interrupts and
> also suboptimal, because it
We have kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick() to decide whether the target cpu
needs to be kicked. The previous condition was wrong, because
architectures that don't use vcpu->mode would not get interrupts and
also suboptimal, because it sent IPI in cases where none was necessary.
The situation is even mor
11 matches
Mail list logo
