From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ed White Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Alternate p2m: support multiple copies of host p2m Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:31:59 -0800 Message-ID: <54B7F98F.1050300@intel.com> References: <1420838801-11704-1-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com> <54B56B79.3010109@citrix.com> <54B579CD.60804@intel.com> <54B583FC.4060800@citrix.com> <54B58E90.20309@intel.com> <54B6151402000078000C580B@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B65C920200007800054BAD@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B6A8D9.904@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tamas K Lengyel Cc: Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/15/2015 02:39 AM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> There are ways of avoiding the >> single-step too, although I don't think that falls within the scope >> of this conversation. >> >> Ed > > I would be very interested in knowing how we can avoid the singlestep > phase. Are you envisioning using this with a split-TLB? IMHO this is a > pretty critical component of effectively using the new feature so > should be within scope of this discussion. > It's an optimization certainly, but it's not required, and it's not a technique we have placed in the public domain. You could try talking to us under NDA or figure it out for yourself, but I can't detail it here. Ed