> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: 03 September 2019 10:38 > To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant > <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monne > <roger....@citrix.com>; Wei Liu <w...@xen.org> > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/8] x86/HVM: ignore guest INVD uses > > The only place we'd expect the insn to be sensibly used is in > (virtualization unaware) firmware. > > Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Seems like a reasonable optimization. Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > --- > v3: New. > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > @@ -2210,11 +2210,18 @@ static int hvmemul_cache_op( > > hvmemul_unmap_linear_addr(mapping, addr, 0, hvmemul_ctxt); > /* fall through */ > - case x86emul_invd: > case x86emul_wbinvd: > case x86emul_wbnoinvd: > alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.wbinvd_intercept); > break; > + > + case x86emul_invd: > + /* > + * Deliberately ignored: We don't want to issue INVD, and issuing > WBINVD > + * wouldn't match the request. And the only place we'd expect the > insn > + * to be sensibly used is in (virtualization unaware) firmware. > + */ > + break; > } > > return X86EMUL_OKAY; _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
