From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Enable Virtual Processor Identification (VPID) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:52:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4799873F.1070503@qumranet.com> References: <200801241426.55928.sheng.yang@intel.com> <47987B7C.1080509@qumranet.com> <200801251212.29031.sheng.yang@intel.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: "Yang, Sheng" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200801251212.29031.sheng.yang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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 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? -- Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/