[PATCH 4/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Add AltiVec support
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Thu Jul 4 04:36:15 EST 2013
On 07/03/2013 12:07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 03.07.2013, at 18:49, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>
> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec?
> Can't
> >> we
> >>>> just load it on demand then once we fault? This code path really
> >> should
> >>>> only be a prefetch enable when MSR_VEC is already set in guest
> >> context.
> >>>
> >>> No we can't, read 6/6.
> >>
> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a
> KVM
> >> guest. Are we?
> >
> > Yes, because MSR[SPV] is under its control.
>
> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the
> kernel always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c
> goes lazy when !CONFIG_SMP.
>
> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but
> not Altivec giveup? One of the 2 probably is wrong :).
Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some
specific piece of code you're referring to that is different in this
regard?
-Scott
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list