On 13/04/2016 11:47, Yang Zhang wrote:
> On 2016/3/24 21:07, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24/03/2016 14:06, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean why not keep the old way that only activate the eager_fpu while
>>> guest sees the MPX bit in CPUID, like:
>>>
>>> vcpu->arch.eager_fpu = use_eager_fpu(
On 2016/3/24 21:07, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 24/03/2016 14:06, Yang Zhang wrote:
I mean why not keep the old way that only activate the eager_fpu while
guest sees the MPX bit in CPUID, like:
vcpu->arch.eager_fpu = use_eager_fpu() && guest_cpuid_has_mpx(vcpu);
If the host uses eager FPU you
On 24/03/2016 14:06, Yang Zhang wrote:
>
> I mean why not keep the old way that only activate the eager_fpu while
> guest sees the MPX bit in CPUID, like:
>
> vcpu->arch.eager_fpu = use_eager_fpu() && guest_cpuid_has_mpx(vcpu);
If the host uses eager FPU you can assume that it's faster than la
On 2016/3/11 20:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.
On 11/03/2016 03:37, Yang Zhang wrote:
@@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
if (best && (best->eax & (F(XSAVES) | F(XSAVEC
best->ebx = xstate_required_size(vcpu->arch.xcr0
On 11/03/2016 03:37, Yang Zhang wrote:
>> @@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> if (best && (best->eax & (F(XSAVES) | F(XSAVEC
>> best->ebx = xstate_required_size(vcpu->arch.xcr0, true);
>>
>> -vcpu->arch.eager_fpu = use_eager_fpu() || gues
When eager FPU is disabled, KVM will still see the MPX bit in CPUID and
presumably the MPX vmentry and vmexit controls. However, it will not
be able to expose the MPX XSAVE features to the guest, because the guest's
accessible XSAVE features are always a subset of host_xcr0.
In this case, we shou
6 matches
Mail list logo