On 30 May 2013 23:38, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:27:01PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 30 May 2013 23:13, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > CONTEXTIDR seems to be such an example. ? >> >> In this specific case I decided it was safe to let the non-raw >> write function do a tlb_flush(). Looking again that is kinda >> expensive though, so we should probably mark these registers >> up with raw_write functions. >> > > Migration is sort of an expensive operation, so not sure if it's worth > it. It'll also happen every time we drop out to a gdb attached to the VM. But yes, this definitely isn't on any fast paths. > I am mostly worries about the case where we would miss raw read/write > functions and that could be hard to track down in the case where > migration fails, but I don't really have great suggestions on how to > ensure this. That's the one argument for insisting on a raw function -- it does mean that when looking at code and patches you can see it's an explicit decision on how to handle the situation. thanks -- PMM _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
