>>> On 05.09.12 at 07:34, Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> wrote: > On 08/25/2012 03:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.08.12 at 20:17, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> >>>>> wrote: >>> How can I reproduce this >> >> I don't know, I spotted this while looking at the code. > > Again, since the old buggy code doesn't cause trouble in PV guest, guess > the hypercall for MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI was translated or treated as > MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI. If so, believe correct this will bring a big > performance benefit.
It's not clear to me what was buggy with the code prior to your change. And no, there's no magic widening of the scope of these MMU operations - if you ask the hypervisor for a single page invalidation, that's what it's going to do. But of course, there are cases where extra (full) invalidations need to be done without a guest asking for them. But that's nothing a guest can validly make itself dependent upon. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
