On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:29:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
>> read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
>> instead of making
On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:29:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
instead
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:29:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
> read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
> instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
>
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:29:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
be
Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
be avoided
The idea is from Avi:
| As I mentioned before,
Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
be avoided
The idea is from Avi:
| As I mentioned before,
6 matches
Mail list logo
