Tim Deegan wrote on 2014-11-19: > At 01:29 +0000 on 19 Nov (1416356943), Zhang, Yang Z wrote: >> Tim Deegan wrote on 2014-11-18: >>> In this case, the guest is entitled to _expect_ pagefaults on 1GB >>> mappings if CPUID claims they are not supported. That sounds like >>> an unlikely thing for the guest to be relying on, but Xen itself >>> does something similar for the SHOPT_FAST_FAULT_PATH (and now also >>> for IOMMU entries for the deferred caching attribute updates). >> >> Indeed. How about adding the software check (as Andrew mentioned) >> firstly and leave the hardware problem (Actually, I don't think we >> can solve it currently). > > I don't think we should change the software path unless we can change > the hardware behaviour too. It's better to be consistent, and it > saves us some cycles in the pt walker.
So if we don't need to add the software check, does this mean current patch is ok? > > Cheers, > > Tim. Best regards, Yang _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
