On 03.07.2013, at 20:36, Scott Wood wrote: > On 07/03/2013 12:07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 03.07.2013, at 18:49, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: >> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec? Can't >> >> we >> >>>> just load it on demand then once we fault? This code path really >> >> should >> >>>> only be a prefetch enable when MSR_VEC is already set in guest >> >> context. >> >>> >> >>> No we can't, read 6/6. >> >> >> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a KVM >> >> guest. Are we? >> > >> > Yes, because MSR[SPV] is under its control. >> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the kernel >> always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c goes lazy when >> !CONFIG_SMP. >> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but not >> Altivec giveup? One of the 2 probably is wrong :). > > Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some specific > piece of code you're referring to that is different in this regard?
Well, apparently because I misread the code :). All is well. Alex _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
