Richard Henderson writes:
> On 11/09/2016 03:57 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> +void tlb_flush_page_all(target_ulong addr)
>
> It's a nit, but when I read this I think all pages, not all cpus.
> Can we rename this tlb_fluch_page_all_cpus?
So to properly support ARM TLB flush semantics I want to move
On 11/10/2016 06:34 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
So to properly support ARM TLB flush semantics I want to move some of
the looping in the helpers into cputlb.c so I'm thinking we'll have:
tlb_flush_page_all_cpus
tlb_flush_by_mmuidx_all_cpus
tlb_flush_page_by_mmuidx_all_cpus
Sounds good, thanks.
In
On 11/09/2016 03:57 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
+void tlb_flush_page_all(target_ulong addr)
It's a nit, but when I read this I think all pages, not all cpus.
Can we rename this tlb_fluch_page_all_cpus?
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson
r~
From: KONRAD Frederic
Some architectures allow to flush the tlb of other VCPUs. This is not a problem
when we have only one thread for all VCPUs but it definitely needs to be an
asynchronous work when we are in true multithreaded work.
We take the tb_lock() when doing this to avoid racing with o
