Hi Hollis !
I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small detail
in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
open coded the emulation of SPRG0..3, but 4...7 are handled
in kvmppc_core_emulate_mtspr() ?
It occurs to me that in fact for both MTSPR and MFSPR,
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small detail
in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
open coded the emulation of SPRG0..3, but 4...7 are handled
in kvmppc_core_emulate_mtspr() ?
Hi Ben,
On 10.07.2009, at 10:10, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small
detail
in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
open coded the emulation of
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 10:42 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
IMHO paravirt stuff can be really useful, but should stay in the
guest. I don't really like the idea of adding binary patching of
guests in the hypervisor more than for dcbz where I didn't see another
way to do it.
I wasn't
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Sounds reasonable.
There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
described.
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppcm=122154653905212w=2
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppcm=122154657905306w=2
Interesting. Any reason why that
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:17 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Sounds reasonable.
There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
described.
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppcm=122154653905212w=2
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:18 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
The only problem I see is that the firmware lives in the high 4k, so
we'd have to have some sort of enabling HV-call too.
What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ? And yes, we
definitely need an enabling HV call, ie, we
On 10.07.2009, at 11:39, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:18 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
The only problem I see is that the firmware lives in the high 4k, so
we'd have to have some sort of enabling HV-call too.
What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ?
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:39 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Oh so we could have the emulation code mapped into the guest and could
just jump there from our trampline code, so all page faults and other
fun traps still work.
That'd be nice :-)
We can put -some- code in there yes, but some
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:43 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What firmware out of curiosity ? The treeboot thingy ? And yes, we
definitely need an enabling HV call, ie, we stick to traps until
it's
On PPC32 openbios is somewhere up there. On PPC64 openbios stays where
it was on PPC32, so it's
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:17 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 17:15 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Sounds reasonable.
There are some old patchset which implemented the binary patch as Ben
described.
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-ppcm=122154653905212w=2
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 18:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I was roaming through kernel usage of SPRGs and noticed a small detail
in kvmppc for BookE ... any reason why in OP_31_XOP_MTSPR, you
open coded the emulation
12 matches
Mail list logo
