On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
under the hypervisor.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:58 -0500
Tabi Timur-B04825 b04...@freescale.com wrote:
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
v2.06 III-E 9.2.1:
Writing the Time Base is hypervisor privileged.
v2.06 III-E 2.1:
If a hypervisor-privileged register is accessed in the guest supervisor
state (MSR[GS PR] =
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 06:44 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Any ETA on Paul's intro of the FTR bit? If not I'll pull this into my
'next' tree and we can clean up later.
His latest KVM patch set has that.
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:55:36 -0500
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
Well, not exactly. Paul wants to break that up since we're adding some
primitive support for 201 HV mode too (for 970's). Last we discussed,
the plan was to go for a generic HV mode bit and a
Scott Wood wrote:
From Power ISA 2.06B, book III-E, section 9.2.1:
Virtualized Implementation Note:
In virtualized implementations, TBU and TBL are
read-only.
But does that mean that a guest should never be allowed to modify a virtualized
timebase register, even if the hypervisor can
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:33:40 -0500
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
From Power ISA 2.06B, book III-E, section 9.2.1:
Virtualized Implementation Note:
In virtualized implementations, TBU and TBL are
read-only.
But does that mean that a guest should never be
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
v2.06 III-E 9.2.1:
Writing the Time Base is hypervisor privileged.
v2.06 III-E 2.1:
If a hypervisor-privileged register is accessed in the guest supervisor
state (MSR[GS PR] = 0b10), an Embedded Hypervisor Privilege exception
occurs.
(v2.06 III-E 5.4.1, the big
(context put back:)
But does that mean that a guest should never be allowed to modify a
virtualized
timebase register, even if the hypervisor can support it?
The book3e mtspr writeup doesn't appear to specify the behavior when
writing to a read-only SPR, so perhaps you could argue that
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 02:10 +, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introduce one
Kumar Gala wrote:
Well, not exactly. Paul wants to break that up since we're adding some
primitive support for 201 HV mode too (for 970's). Last we discussed,
the plan was to go for a generic HV mode bit and a separate bit for the
version.
Cheers,
Ben.
Any ETA on Paul's intro
The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
under the hypervisor.
This typically happens when kexec support is enabled.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:04:33 -0500
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
The Freescale hypervisor does not allow guests to write to the timebase
registers (virtualizing the timebase register was deemed too complicated),
so don't try to synchronize the timebase registers when we're running
Scott Wood wrote:
FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an SMP
guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than logs errors as
the FSL HV does.
Does KVM set the root compatible to fsl,P4080DS-hv?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:15:26 -0500
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an SMP
guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than logs errors as
the FSL HV does.
Does KVM set the root
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 18:25 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:15:26 -0500
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
FWIW, it's not supported under KVM either -- though we don't support an
SMP
guest under KVM yet, and KVM silently ignores it rather than
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introduce one
so you may want to sync with him.
Are you talking about CPU_FTR_HVMODE_206?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 02:10 +, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We might want to generically have a CPU feature bit indicating we are
running in guest vs. HV mode. I know Paulus is planning to introduce one
so you may want to sync with him.
Are you talking about
17 matches
Mail list logo
