On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:32:42AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2016年11月10日 06:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:28:02PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2016年11月08日 19:04, Aviv B.D wrote:
From: "Aviv Ben-David"<address@hidden>
This capability asks the guest to invalidate cache before each map operation.
We can use this invalidation to trap map operations in the hypervisor.
Like I've asked twice in the past, I want to know why don't you cache
translation faults as what spec required (especially this is a guest visible
Btw, please cc me on posting future versions.
Caching isn't guest visible.
Seems not, if one fault mapping were cached by IOTLB. Guest can notice this
Sorry, I don't get what you are saying.
Spec just says you*can* cache,
not that you must.
Yes, but what did in this patch is "don't". What I suggest is just a "can",
since anyway the IOTLB entries were limited and could be replaced by other.
Have trouble understanding this. Can you given an example of
a guest visible difference?