On 25/01/2022 15:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.01.2022 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
it as a NOP.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
I'm sorry, I should have Cc-ed Paul here as well.
Acked-by: Paul Durrant
Jan
---
While
On 25.01.2022 16:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/01/2022 14:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
>> it as a NOP.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> Treating CLDEMOTE as a NOP is going to be more efficient than actually
> setting up
On 25/01/2022 14:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
> it as a NOP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Treating CLDEMOTE as a NOP is going to be more efficient than actually
setting up the mapping to execute a real CLDEMOTE instruction on
On 25.01.2022 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
> it as a NOP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
I'm sorry, I should have Cc-ed Paul here as well.
Jan
> ---
> While handling x86emul_cldemote separately in hvmemul_cache_op() means
On 25.01.2022 15:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 03:22:25PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
>> it as a NOP.
>
> While not ideal, the SDM mentions that "The CLDEMOTE instruction may
> be ignored by hardware
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 03:22:25PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
> it as a NOP.
While not ideal, the SDM mentions that "The CLDEMOTE instruction may
be ignored by hardware in certain cases and is not a guarantee.".
>
We claim to support the insn, but so far the emulator has been handling
it as a NOP.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
While handling x86emul_cldemote separately in hvmemul_cache_op() means
to carry some redundant code, folding it with CLFLUSH{,OPT} / CLWB
didn't seem very attractive either.
---
