On 9/11/18 10:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.09.18 at 16:17, wrote:
>> On 9/11/18 3:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.09.18 at 23:56, wrote:
On 09/10/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
> involved WRMSRs,
>>> On 11.09.18 at 16:17, wrote:
> On 9/11/18 3:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.09.18 at 23:56, wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
involved WRMSRs, I thought it might be a reasonable idea to al
On 9/11/18 3:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.09.18 at 23:56, wrote:
>> On 09/10/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
>>> involved WRMSRs, I thought it might be a reasonable idea to also use it
>>> for PV. Measurements, howe
>>> On 10.09.18 at 23:56, wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
>> involved WRMSRs, I thought it might be a reasonable idea to also use it
>> for PV. Measurements, however, have shown that an actual improvement c
On 09/10/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
> involved WRMSRs, I thought it might be a reasonable idea to also use it
> for PV. Measurements, however, have shown that an actual improvement can
> be achieved only with an early pre
Having noticed that VMLOAD alone is about as fast as a single of the
involved WRMSRs, I thought it might be a reasonable idea to also use it
for PV. Measurements, however, have shown that an actual improvement can
be achieved only with an early prefetch of the VMCB (thanks to Andrew
for suggesting
