On 2016年11月10日 06:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:28:02PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
>On 2016年11月08日 19:04, Aviv B.D wrote:
> >From: "Aviv Ben-David"<bd.a...@gmail.com>
> >
> >This capability asks the guest to invalidate cache before each map operation.
> >We can use this invalidation to trap map operations in the hypervisor.
>
>Hi:
>
>Like I've asked twice in the past, I want to know why don't you cache
>translation faults as what spec required (especially this is a guest visible
>behavior)?
>
>Btw, please cc me on posting future versions.
>
>Thanks
Caching isn't guest visible.
Seems not, if one fault mapping were cached by IOTLB. Guest can notice
this behavior.
Spec just says you*can* cache,
not that you must.
Yes, but what did in this patch is "don't". What I suggest is just a
"can", since anyway the IOTLB entries were limited and could be replaced
by other.
Thanks
