On 2015-05-24 17:28, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-04-21 14:21, Radim Krčmář wrote: >> 2015-04-21 13:09+0200, Paolo Bonzini: >>> >>> >>> On 20/04/2015 19:25, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> When hardware supports the g_pat VMCB field, we can use it for emulating >>>> the PAT configuration that the guest configures by writing to the >>>> corresponding MSR. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I'm not sure about this. The problem is that, unlike Intel, AMD has no >>> way for the host to force its PAT value and ignore the guest's. I'm >>> worried about potential performance problems in the guest. >> >> We already set g_pat to 0x0007040600070406ULL in init_vmcb(). >> This patch uses caching that the guest expects, which might improve >> performance as well. I think it's a step in right direction even if we >> somehow optimize cache coherent cases later. > > This topic is still open - and the patch still applies. Just rebased by kvm patch queue for some new entries - in this old one is still there. What can we do about it? Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
