Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm: honor opt_pcid also for 32-bit PV domains

2019-09-12 Thread Jan Beulich
On 12.09.2019 12:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat >> 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > The original commit mention

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm: honor opt_pcid also for 32-bit PV domains

2019-09-12 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat > 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich The original commit mentions that PCID doesn't improve performance for non-XPTI d

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm: honor opt_pcid also for 32-bit PV domains

2019-09-11 Thread Jan Beulich
I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c @@ -180,7 +180,24 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) d->arch.x87_fip_width = 4;

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm: honor opt_pcid also for 32-bit PV domains

2019-05-02 Thread Jan Beulich
I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c @@ -180,7 +180,24 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) d->arch.x87_fip_width = 4;