Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 01/10/2018 18:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> ...
I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 01/10/2018 18:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> ...
I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would
On 01/10/2018 18:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
>>> pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would call
>>> kvm_apic_set_irq() on all
On 01/10/2018 18:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
>>> pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would call
>>> kvm_apic_set_irq() on all
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
...
>>
>> I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
>> pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would call
>> kvm_apic_set_irq() on all vcpus in a mask (optimizing the all-set case
>> with a
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
...
>>
>> I must say that now it looks even more tempting to follow the same
>> pattern as your kvm_hv_flush_tlb: define a function that would call
>> kvm_apic_set_irq() on all vcpus in a mask (optimizing the all-set case
>> with a
On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:02:59PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
>> any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
>> will take only one VMEXIT.
>>
>>
On 27/09/2018 13:07, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:02:59PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
>> any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
>> will take only one VMEXIT.
>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:02:59PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
> any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
> will take only one VMEXIT.
>
> Current Hyper-V TLFS (v5.0b) claims that
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:02:59PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
> any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
> will take only one VMEXIT.
>
> Current Hyper-V TLFS (v5.0b) claims that
10 matches
Mail list logo
