> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 17 March 2016 08:12
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Keir (Xen.org)
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/hvm/viridian: fix the TLB flush hypercall
>
> >>> On 16.03.16 at 18:35, wrot
On 17/03/16 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.03.16 at 15:21, wrote:
>> Commit b38d426a "flush remote tlbs by hypercall" add support to allow
>> Windows to request flush of remote TLB via hypercall rather than IPI.
>> Unfortunately it seems that this code was broken in a couple of ways:
>>
>> 1
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 16 March 2016 15:36
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Keir (Xen.org)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/hvm/viridian: fix the TLB flush hypercall
>
> >>> On 16.03.16 at 15:21, wrot
>>> On 16.03.16 at 18:35, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: 16 March 2016 15:36
>> >>> On 16.03.16 at 15:21, wrote:
>> > @@ -656,7 +647,9 @@ int viridian_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> > * so we may unnecessarily IPI some CPUs.
>> > */
>
>>> On 16.03.16 at 15:21, wrote:
> v2:
> - Move to per-pcpu ipi mask.
> - Use smp_send_event_check_mask() to IPI rather than flush_tlb_mask().
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 12
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian.c| 19 ++-
> xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/v
>>> On 16.03.16 at 15:21, wrote:
> Commit b38d426a "flush remote tlbs by hypercall" add support to allow
> Windows to request flush of remote TLB via hypercall rather than IPI.
> Unfortunately it seems that this code was broken in a couple of ways:
>
> 1) The allocation of the per-vcpu ipi mask i
