On 12/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.12.15 at 16:14, wrote:
On 12/15/2015 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.12.15 at 15:36, wrote:
On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI
On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
But if the VCPU is asleep, doing it via the hypervi
>>> On 15.12.15 at 16:14, wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.12.15 at 15:36, wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much si
>>> On 15.12.15 at 15:36, wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
>>> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
>>>
>> Bu
On 12/15/2015 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.12.15 at 15:36, wrote:
On 12/14/2015 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
will likely perform same IPIs as
On 12/14/2015 10:35 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 14/12/15 a les 16.27, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha escrit:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
El 14/12/15 a les 16.27, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha escrit:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
>> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
>>
>
> But if the VCPU is asleep, doing it
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
>
But if the VCPU is asleep, doing it via the hypervisor will save us waking
up the guest VCPU, sending
On 12/14/2015 08:58 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 13/12/15 00:25, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
More importantly, using MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI may not to invalidate the
guest's addres
On 13/12/15 00:25, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
> will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
>
> More importantly, using MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI may not to invalidate the
> guest's address on remote CPU (when, for example, V
Using MMUEXT_TLB_FLUSH_MULTI doesn't buy us much since the hypervisor
will likely perform same IPIs as would have the guest.
More importantly, using MMUEXT_INVLPG_MULTI may not to invalidate the
guest's address on remote CPU (when, for example, VCPU from another guest
is running there).
Signed-of
11 matches
Mail list logo
