On 10/08/2012 04:01:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 08.10.2012, at 22:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 08:30:06 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 07.10.2012, at 15:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > The downside of this generic approach is that it prepares
suprises down
>> > the road. The alterna
On 08.10.2012, at 22:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 08:30:06 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 07.10.2012, at 15:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > The downside of this generic approach is that it prepares suprises down
>> > the road. The alternative approach, of adding a new KVM_EXIT_RESET,
>> > a
On 10/07/2012 08:30:06 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.10.2012, at 15:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The downside of this generic approach is that it prepares suprises
down
> the road. The alternative approach, of adding a new KVM_EXIT_RESET,
> avoids this minefield, but requires ABI changes every
On 07.10.2012, at 15:34, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 03:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Yup. The new APIC MSR registers would also have the same problem, right?
>>>
>>> Which new APIC MSR registers?
>>
>> I thought x2apic can be accessed through MSRs? If you want to emulate that
On 10/07/2012 03:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup. The new APIC MSR registers would also have the same problem, right?
>>
>> Which new APIC MSR registers?
>
> I thought x2apic can be accessed through MSRs? If you want to emulate that in
> user space, you need something similar.
It's em
On 07.10.2012, at 15:30, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 03:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, yes. I forgot to add this exit to that section of the spec.
>>
>> Patch submitted :).
>
> Ugh, the whole point of finding problems in patches is that I don't have
> to think about them for a
On 10/07/2012 03:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> Ah, yes. I forgot to add this exit to that section of the spec.
>
> Patch submitted :).
Ugh, the whole point of finding problems in patches is that I don't have
to think about them for a while. Posting a new patch in a few minutes
negates this
On 07.10.2012, at 15:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 03:19 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 07.10.2012, at 15:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
control behavior inside a co
On 07.10.2012, at 15:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 07.10.2012, at 15:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
>>> control behavior inside a core, so the best place to emulate them
>>> traditio
On 10/07/2012 03:19 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 07.10.2012, at 15:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
>>> control behavior inside a core, so the best place to emulate them
>>> traditional
On 07.10.2012, at 15:13, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
>> control behavior inside a core, so the best place to emulate them
>> traditionally has been the kernel side of kvm.
>>
>> However, some
On 10/07/2012 01:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> SPRs on PowerPC are the equivalent to MSRs on x86. They usually
> control behavior inside a core, so the best place to emulate them
> traditionally has been the kernel side of kvm.
>
> However, some SPRs should be emulated by user space. For example
12 matches
Mail list logo