From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] KVM: hypercall based pte updates and TLB flushes Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:00:52 -0300 Message-ID: <20080218050052.GA5170@dmt> References: <20080216220924.733723618@redhat.com>> <20080216221220.843135254@redhat.com>> <47B7F017.10902@qumranet.com> <47B8330B.6050405@qumranet.com> <20080217145148.GA31750@dmt> <47B84B60.6020508@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47B84B60.6020508@qumranet.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 04:57:36PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Issue is the paravirt_ops code in Linux does not cover all pte updates > > (bit updates, ptep_get_and_clear, etc). > > > > The plan is to get the basic infrastructure merged into KVM first (which > > is a significant improvement already) and then later have paravirt_ops > > cover all updates, disabling write protection. > > > > Okay, sounds good. > > Do you know if anyone is working on extending pv_ops as you describe? Not that I'm aware of. I was planning to do it. The first part of that is a mask based bit update hypercall (ie. a non-broken version of the patch I posted earlier which Jeremy replied to). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/