On 02.07.2019 17:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/06/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While for 32-bit IRTEs I think we can safely continue to assume that the
>> writes will translate to a single MOV, the use of CMPXCHG16B is more
>
> The CMPXCHG16B here is stale.
Indeed, as is the 32-bit IRTE p
On 27/06/2019 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While for 32-bit IRTEs I think we can safely continue to assume that the
> writes will translate to a single MOV, the use of CMPXCHG16B is more
The CMPXCHG16B here is stale.
> heavy handed than necessary for the 128-bit form, and the flushing
> didn't get
While for 32-bit IRTEs I think we can safely continue to assume that the
writes will translate to a single MOV, the use of CMPXCHG16B is more
heavy handed than necessary for the 128-bit form, and the flushing
didn't get done along the lines of what the specification says. Mark
entries to be updated
