On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 June 2015 at 15:25, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/06/2015 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Ping?
>>
>> Oh, YIELD was what I was thinking of in the thread about IPIs, not WFE
>> (which would require SEV on the other core)...
>
> Li
Am 26.06.2015 um 16:04 schrieb Peter Maydell:
> Ping?
OK for me.
Best regards
Alex
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
> On 15 June 2015 at 19:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This patchset makes the ARM and Thumb encodings of the YIELD hint
>> instruction in the ARM cause the TCG CPU to yield control back
>> t
On 26 June 2015 at 15:25, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 26/06/2015 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Ping?
>
> Oh, YIELD was what I was thinking of in the thread about IPIs, not WFE
> (which would require SEV on the other core)...
Linux doesn't in practice put YIELD insns into its busy loops,
so thi
On 26/06/2015 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Ping?
Oh, YIELD was what I was thinking of in the thread about IPIs, not WFE
(which would require SEV on the other core)...
The patches look good, but I cannot really say much about this code.
Paolo
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
> On 15 June 2015 at 19:49, P
Ping?
thanks
-- PMM
On 15 June 2015 at 19:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This patchset makes the ARM and Thumb encodings of the YIELD hint
> instruction in the ARM cause the TCG CPU to yield control back
> to the top level loop. This brings them into line with the A64
> encoding which already did th
This patchset makes the ARM and Thumb encodings of the YIELD hint
instruction in the ARM cause the TCG CPU to yield control back
to the top level loop. This brings them into line with the A64
encoding which already did this.
Patch 1 splits out DISAS_YIELD from DISAS_WFE, because although
we curren
