On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 11:07 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 10:40 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 10/02/2017 10:37 AM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > > nvmx_handle_invept() updates current's np2m just to flush it. This is
> > >
On 10/02/2017 10:40 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 10:37 AM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> nvmx_handle_invept() updates current's np2m just to flush it. This is
>>> not only wasteful, but ineffective: if several L2 vcpus share the sam
On 10/02/2017 10:37 AM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> nvmx_handle_invept() updates current's np2m just to flush it. This is
>> not only wasteful, but ineffective: if several L2 vcpus share the same
>> np2m base pointer, they all need to be flushe
On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> nvmx_handle_invept() updates current's np2m just to flush it. This is
> not only wasteful, but ineffective: if several L2 vcpus share the same
> np2m base pointer, they all need to be flushed (not only the current
> one).
I don't follow th
nvmx_handle_invept() updates current's np2m just to flush it. This is
not only wasteful, but ineffective: if several L2 vcpus share the same
np2m base pointer, they all need to be flushed (not only the current
one).
Introduce a new function, np2m_flush_base() which will flush all
shadow p2m's tha
