On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:23:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
> respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
> record the creation of PV domains by bumping opt_xpti_* accordingly.
>
> As to the sticky op
On 18.05.2020 19:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:23:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -310,7 +313,16 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *
>> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */
>> d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>
>> -d->arch.pv.x
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:55:38AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.05.2020 19:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:23:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> @@ -310,7 +313,16 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *
> >> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */
> >> d->arc
On 19.05.2020 11:15, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:55:38AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.05.2020 19:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:23:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -310,7 +313,16 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *
/*
On 25/09/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
> respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
> record the creation of PV domains by bumping opt_xpti_* accordingly.
>
> As to the sticky opt_xpti_domu vs increme
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:00:14PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/09/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
> > respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
> > record the creation of PV domains by bumpin
On 22.05.2020 13:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/09/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
>> respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
>> record the creation of PV domains by bumping opt_xpti_* accordingly
On 22/05/2020 12:13, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:00:14PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/09/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
>>> respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
When there's no XPTI-enabled PV domain at all, there's no need to issue
respective TLB flushes. Hardwire opt_xpti_* to false when !PV, and
record the creation of PV domains by bumping opt_xpti_* accordingly.
As to the sticky opt_xpti_domu vs increment/decrement of opt_xpti_hwdom,
this is done this
