On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 16:20 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Sure, if there might be stale stuff in the icache, the guest will need
> to invalidate that. But when running on real hardware, an OS does not
> need to flush it out of data cache after a DMA transaction[1]. So
> technically we just want a f
On 09/28/2011 04:02 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> Why would it need to be synchronous? Even if it's asynchronous emulated
>> DMA, we don't want it sitting around only in a data cache that
>> instruction fetches won't snoop.
>
> Exce
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Why would it need to be synchronous? Even if it's asynchronous emulated
> DMA, we don't want it sitting around only in a data cache that
> instruction fetches won't snoop.
Except that this is exactly what happens on real HW :-)
The guest wi
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 16:26 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> This makes sure that when device emulation overwrites code that is
> already present in the cache of a CPU, it gets flushed from the
> icache. I'm fairly sure we want that :). But let's ask Ben and David
> as well.
Hrm we don't need tha
On 09/28/2011 09:45 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 16:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Alex,
>>>
>>> we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
>>> index c1e045d..f188549 100644
>>> --- a/exec.c
>>> +++ b/exec.c
>>> @@
On 2011-09-28 16:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Alex,
we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index c1e045d..f188549 100644
--- a/exec.c
+++ b/exec.c
@@ -3950,6 +3955,11 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr,
uint8_t
Am 28.09.2011 um 16:49 schrieb Jan Kiszka :
> On 2011-09-28 16:45, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-09-28 16:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
Alex,
we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index c1e04
On 2011-09-28 16:45, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-09-28 16:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Alex,
we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index c1e045d..f188549 100644
--- a/exec.c
+++ b/exec.c
@@ -3950,6 +3955,11 @@ void cpu_physical_mem
On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Alex,
>
> we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
>
> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> index c1e045d..f188549 100644
> --- a/exec.c
> +++ b/exec.c
> @@ -3950,6 +3955,11 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr,
> uint8_t *buf,
>
Alex,
we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index c1e045d..f188549 100644
--- a/exec.c
+++ b/exec.c
@@ -3950,6 +3955,11 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr,
uint8_t *buf,
cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_flags(
a
10 matches
Mail list logo