On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:19:42 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When I implemented the parallel faults series I was mostly focused on > improving the performance of 8.1+ implementations which bring us > FEAT_HAFDBS. In so doing, I failed to put access faults on the read side > of the MMU lock. > > Anyhow, this small series adds support for handling access faults in > parallel, piling on top of the infrastructure from the first parallel > faults series. As most large systems I'm aware of are 8.1+ anyway, I > don't expect this series to provide significant uplift beyond some > oddball machines Marc has lying around. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to > have a D05 to play with too... Hey, that puts the whole fruity range of machines in the oddball department too, as they don't implement any of HAFDBS! The feature being optional, I wouldn't be surprised if others would either not implement it (or disable it to hide that it is b0rk3n...). M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
