On 07/05/2009 03:22 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Gleb Natapov writes:
Therefore I don't see the point of supporting one without the other.
x2apic provide us with other benefits as commit message explains, and
doesn't add any problems that we don't have now already.
If this
Gleb Natapov writes:
>> Therefore I don't see the point of supporting one without the other.
> x2apic provide us with other benefits as commit message explains, and
> doesn't add any problems that we don't have now already.
If this code has a legitimate place on real hardware I am all for it.
I
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 07:33:39AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Gleb Natapov writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Ingo Molnar writes:
> >>
> >> > * Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
On 07/03/2009 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Now, since this affects core x86 APIC code non-trivially so should
submitted to and go via the x86 tree. (Can prepare a special branch
with just this change if KVM tree wants/needs to pull it before
v2.6.32.)
The kvm tree won't depend on this chang
Gleb Natapov writes:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar writes:
>>
>> > * Suresh Siddha wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> >> > KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
>> >
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> > * Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> > KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
> >> > interrupt remapping device.
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Suresh Siddha wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
>> > interrupt remapping device. The reason KVM prefers guest to use x2APIC
>> > is that x2APIC interface is bette
* Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
> > interrupt remapping device. The reason KVM prefers guest to use x2APIC
> > is that x2APIC interface is better virtualizable and provides
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 06:30 -0700, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
> interrupt remapping device. The reason KVM prefers guest to use x2APIC
> is that x2APIC interface is better virtualizable and provides better
> performance than mmio xA
KVM would like to provide x2APIC interface to a guest without emulating
interrupt remapping device. The reason KVM prefers guest to use x2APIC
is that x2APIC interface is better virtualizable and provides better
performance than mmio xAPIC interface:
- msr exits are faster than mmio (no page t
10 matches
Mail list logo