Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1620503 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-10 19:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-04-10 19:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
RE: [PATCH 6/7] x86/hyper-v: use hypercall for remove TLB flush Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-10 19:40 +0200
| From | Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 19:40 +0200 |
| Subject | RE: [PATCH 6/7] x86/hyper-v: use hypercall for remove TLB flush |
| Message-ID | <tuLsg-3QQ-93@gated-at.bofh.it> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com] > > We may be supporting more than 64 CPUs in this hypercall. I am going > > to inquire with the Windows folks and get back to you. > > Thanks! It is even specified in the specification: > "Future versions of the hypervisor may support more than 64 virtual > processors per partition. In that case, a new field will be added to the flags > value that allows the caller to define the “processor bank” to which the > processor mask applies." > > We, however, need to know where to put this in flags. Would the HvFlushVirtualAddressListEx hypercall do? Is there a doc update/clarification needed? Regards, Jork
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web