>>> On 15.03.17 at 14:08, wrote:
> With that said, should I submit a new version of the original LOCK patch
> to have in the meantime (until the fix suggested by Andrew is
> implemented, and presumably to be reverted once it lands), or is it not
> worth xen-devel's extra time?
I think it would be
On 03/15/2017 02:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.03.17 at 13:08, wrote:
>> On 15/03/17 07:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.17 at 22:07, wrote:
On 12/14/2016 09:37 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
>>
>>> On 15.03.17 at 13:08, wrote:
> On 15/03/17 07:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.17 at 22:07, wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2016 09:37 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
>> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On 15/03/17 07:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.17 at 22:07, wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 09:37 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On a somewhat related note, it's i
>>> On 14.03.17 at 22:07, wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 09:37 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
> t
On 12/14/2016 09:37 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
to avoid emulation races such as the LOCK
>>> On 15.12.16 at 13:32, wrote:
> On 14/12/16 07:37, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
> to avo
On 14/12/16 07:37, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
to avoid emulation races such as the LOCK CMPXC
On 14/12/16 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.12.16 at 11:43, wrote:
>> The movlpd's should be easy to implement. They aren't meaningfully
>> different from their integer counterparts in terms of needs for the
>> emulator.
> Well, the thing here is the increasing complexity of determining
> th
>>> On 14.12.16 at 11:43, wrote:
> The movlpd's should be easy to implement. They aren't meaningfully
> different from their integer counterparts in terms of needs for the
> emulator.
Well, the thing here is the increasing complexity of determining
the right size to do the actual memory access w
On 14/12/16 08:53, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>>>
Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
definitely subject to improv
>>> On 14.12.16 at 09:53, wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Do you have stats on which instructions you most frequently have to
>> singlestep because of lack of emulator support, or is the spread
>> essentially random?
>
> Here's what I've gathered just now with nothing mor
On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>>
>>> Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
>>> definitely subject to improvement), which implements things such as
>>> wrmsr
On 12/14/2016 09:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
>> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
>>> to avoid emulation races such as the LOCK CMPXCHG issue we've discussed
>>> in the past. Maybe
>>> On 13.12.16 at 23:02, wrote:
> On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On a somewhat related note, it's important to also figure out how best
>> to avoid emulation races such as the LOCK CMPXCHG issue we've discussed
>> in the past. Maybe that's also worth taking into consideration at t
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:56 PM
>
> >>> On 13.12.16 at 13:00, wrote:
> > During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a
> > suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the
> > SVM/VMX intercept info
On 13/12/2016 21:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 11:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 13/12/2016 20:51, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>
>>
On 12/13/2016 11:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/12/2016 20:51, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
> Think of it a bit more like introducing a new a
On 13/12/2016 20:51, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>>>
Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
definitely subject to impr
On 12/13/2016 07:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>>
>>> Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
>>> definitely subject to improvement), which implements things such as
>>> wrmsr
On 13/12/16 15:58, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
>
>> Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
>> definitely subject to improvement), which implements things such as
>> wrmsr, cpuid, pagewalk, task_switch, etc.
>>
>> The vmexi
Hello, and first of all thanks for the discussion!
> Think of it a bit more like introducing a new action emulator (name
> definitely subject to improvement), which implements things such as
> wrmsr, cpuid, pagewalk, task_switch, etc.
>
> The vmexit helpers, given decode assistance from hardware,
On 13/12/16 12:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.16 at 13:00, wrote:
>> During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a
>> suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the
>> SVM/VMX intercept information into a slightly more general emulate
>> framework,
>>> On 13.12.16 at 13:00, wrote:
> During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a
> suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the
> SVM/VMX intercept information into a slightly more general emulate
> framework, rather than to try to implement common func
Hello,
I bring this query up now as I realise it will influence how I proceed
with the MSR and CPUID faulting improvements.
During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a
suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the
SVM/VMX intercept information into a
25 matches
Mail list logo
