On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
> registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
> so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
> under the hypervisor.
>
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 06:44 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> Any ETA on Paul's intro of the FTR bit? If not I'll pull this into my
> 'next' tree and we can clean up later.
His latest KVM patch set has that.
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Lin
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:58 -0500
Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > v2.06 III-E 9.2.1:
> > "Writing the Time Base is hypervisor privileged."
> >
> > v2.06 III-E 2.1:
> > "If a hypervisor-privileged register is accessed in the guest supervisor
> > state (MSR[GS PR] = 0b
(context put back:)
But does that mean that a guest should never be allowed to modify a
virtualized
timebase register, even if the hypervisor can support it?
The book3e mtspr writeup doesn't appear to specify the behavior when
writing to a read-only SPR, so perhaps you could argue that someth
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> v2.06 III-E 9.2.1:
> "Writing the Time Base is hypervisor privileged."
>
> v2.06 III-E 2.1:
> "If a hypervisor-privileged register is accessed in the guest supervisor
> state (MSR[GS PR] = 0b10), an Embedded Hypervisor Privilege exception
> occurs."
>
> (v2.06 III-E 5.
But does that mean that a guest should never be allowed to modify a
virtualized
timebase register, even if the hypervisor can support it?
The book3e mtspr writeup doesn't appear to specify the behavior when
writing to a read-only SPR, so perhaps you could argue that something
other
than a no-
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:33:40 -0500
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> > From Power ISA 2.06B, book III-E, section 9.2.1:
> >
> > Virtualized Implementation Note:
> >
> > In virtualized implementations, TBU and TBL are
> > read-only.
>
> But does that mean that a guest should never be allo
Scott Wood wrote:
> From Power ISA 2.06B, book III-E, section 9.2.1:
>
> Virtualized Implementation Note:
>
> In virtualized implementations, TBU and TBL are
> read-only.
But does that mean that a guest should never be allowed to modify a virtualized
timebase register, even if the hypervisor can
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:55:36 -0500
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well, not exactly. Paul wants to break that up since we're adding some
> >> > primitive support for 201 HV mode too (for 970's). Last we discussed,
> >> > the plan was to go for a generic HV mode bit and a sep
Kumar Gala wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, not exactly. Paul wants to break that up since we're adding some
>> > primitive support for 201 HV mode too (for 970's). Last we discussed,
>> > the plan was to go for a generic HV mode bit and a separate bit for the
>> > version.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ben.
> A
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 02:10 +, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
>>> running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introd
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 02:10 +, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
> > running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introduce one
> > so you may want to sync with him.
>
> Are you talki
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
> running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introduce one
> so you may want to sync with him.
Are you talking about CPU_FTR_HVMODE_206?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at F
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 18:25 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:15:26 -0500
> Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> > Scott Wood wrote:
> > > FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an
> > > SMP
> > > guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than logs er
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:15:26 -0500
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> > FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an SMP
> > guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than logs errors as
> > the FSL HV does.
>
> Does KVM set the root compatible to "f
Scott Wood wrote:
> FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an SMP
> guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than logs errors as
> the FSL HV does.
Does KVM set the root compatible to "fsl,P4080DS-hv"?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:04:33 -0500
Timur Tabi wrote:
> The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
> registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
> so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
> under the hyperviso
The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
under the hypervisor.
This typically happens when kexec support is enabled.
Sign
18 matches
Mail list logo
