On 06/29/2010 03:32 PM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:42:57AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/29/2010 01:32 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Correctness is more important than performance. Since we don't know
whether the guest needs it or not, we have to enable it. The user may
disable it if he likes.
Can't this code only be enabled if VT-d hardware is detected that does
not support the snoop force bit? So the user does not have to struggle
with configuration options that are hard to understand for a
non-developer.
It's already this way, that's why we test for
KVM_IOMMU_CACHE_COHERENCY. Jan wants an override for older hardware
which doesn't support a coherent iommu (the wbinvd ipi on task
migrations, on processors that don't support wbinvd exits, is
particularly expensive).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
