[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eS25UwLM_ScfyuJ0BsUeLhM_cyfSQfFgJEQSdqFjVj-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:55:51 -0800
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:53 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> Rather than doing the expensive guest_cpu_has() every time (which is
> worse now as we realised we need two of them) perhaps we should
> introduce a local flag for that too?
That sounds good to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists