On 03.04.2020 17:13, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 03/04/2020 08:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.04.2020 01:12, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 24/03/2020 12:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Introduce a new blk() hook, paralleling the rmw() on in certain way, but >>>> being intended for larger data sizes, and hence its HVM intermediate >>>> handling function doesn't fall back to splitting the operation if the >>>> requested virtual address can't be mapped. >>>> >>>> Note that SDM revision 071 doesn't specify exception behavior for >>>> ModRM.mod == 0b11; assuming #UD here. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> Thanks much, but I'm puzzled by you providing this, and hence >> would like to double check: You specifically asked that I take >> care of the cachability issue for MOVDIRI before you would ack >> that change. How come you're not similarly concerned here? > > This executes the MOVDIR64B instruction directly, so those properties > are taken care of. (I think?) > > The MOVDIRI support just does a memcpy().
Oh, now I understand. I could make MOVDIRI follow suit and actually use this insn to back emulation. Jan
