Re: [Xen-devel] [Patch 2/4] Refining Xsave/Xrestore support

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>]

On 28/10/2010 08:52, "Haitao Shan" <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Then I would prefer to write XCR0 unconditionally. Otherwise, I can
> only refer to the approach for handling CR4 switches: reading CR4
> first and checking whether there is a need to write actually.
> But I don't think <a read to XCR0 plus a data comparison> can save any
> compared with one unconditional write to XCR0.
> Are you OK with this?

Note that read_cr4() actually returns a cached copy of cr4, as stashed by
write_cr4(). You should use the same trick for XCR0, and then do the
cached-read-and-compare on context switch, again just as we do for cr4.

 -- Keir

> Thanks for pointing out the memory leak when hvm_vcpu_initialize
> fails. I will update accordingly.
> 
> Shan Haitao
> 
> 2010/10/28 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On 28.10.10 at 06:58, Haitao Shan <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This is the updated patch#2. Thanks.
>> 
>> Sorry, but this is worse than not checking at all: You didn't consider
>> the idle vCPU case here, and hence you may end up having more
>> features enabled in xcr0 for a guest than it should have.
>> 
>> Also I only now noticed that you're leaking the xsave_area allocation
>> in vcpu_initialize() if hvm_vcpu_initialise() fails.
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel