From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yang, Sheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Enable Virtual Processor Identification (VPID) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:01:54 +0800 Message-ID: <200801251501.54884.sheng.yang@intel.com> References: <200801241426.55928.sheng.yang@intel.com> <200801251212.29031.sheng.yang@intel.com> <4799873F.1070503@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4799873F.1070503-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Friday 25 January 2008 14:52:47 Avi Kivity wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > Here is the updated patch: > > Applied, thanks. > > > @@ -1714,6 +1788,8 @@ static int vmx_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > vmx_fpu_activate(&vmx->vcpu); > > update_exception_bitmap(&vmx->vcpu); > > > > + vpid_sync_all(); > > + > > return 0; > > This causes the new instruction to be executed unconditionally, which > would #UD on older processors, no? I replaced it with > vpid_sync_vcpu_all() which seems sufficient, or do I miss something? I think it's OK for there is a judgment in __invvpid() to see if machine has the ability(also if it is allowed to using VPID). :) Thanks! -- Thanks Yang, Sheng ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/