Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the
branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the absence of
hardware hypervisor extensions), where mtmsr is paravirtualized but rfi
is not. For a virtualized guest without any paravirtualization, this
eliminates an
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:34 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the
branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the absence of
hardware hypervisor extensions), where mtmsr is paravirtualized but rfi
is not. For a virtualized
On 07/10/2012 07:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:34 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the
branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the absence of
hardware hypervisor extensions), where mtmsr is
On 11.07.2012, at 02:34, Scott Wood wrote:
Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the
branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the absence of
hardware hypervisor extensions), where mtmsr is paravirtualized but rfi
is not. For a virtualized guest
On 07/10/2012 07:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 11.07.2012, at 02:34, Scott Wood wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
+/*
+ * We're not changing address space on Book E, and the extra rfi
+ * can hurt when virtualized without hardware support -- whereas
+ * mtmsr can be
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:41 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/10/2012 07:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:34 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the
branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:47 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/10/2012 07:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 11.07.2012, at 02:34, Scott Wood wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
+ /*
+ * We're not changing address space on Book E, and the extra rfi
+ * can hurt when virtualized without
