Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2?

["Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:27 +0000
> From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>, "Tim \(Xen.org\)"
>       <tim@xxxxxxx>,  xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,      Ian 
> Jackson
>       <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,    Stefano Stabellini
>       <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2?
> Message-ID: <1326721167.17210.449.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:55 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.01.12 at 17:29, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > What are the outstanding things to do before we think we can start on
>> > the 4.2 -rc's? Does anyone have a timetable in mind?
>> >
>> > hypervisor:
>> >
>> >       * ??? - Keir, Tim, Jan?
Insofar paging/sharing for 4.2:
- mem event ring management posted, seems close to going in.
- I would love to have wait queue support for paging, which Olaf is
working on.
- Just posted sharing patches.
- A long standing issue is a fully synchronized p2m (locking lookups),
which is something I'll look into as all of the above becomes resolved.

Thanks,
Andres
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:42:49 +0000
> From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "Keir \(Xen.org\)"
>       <keir@xxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian
>       Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim       \(Xen.org\)" 
> <tim@xxxxxxx>,
>       Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2?
> Message-ID: <1326721369.17210.452.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:51 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:29:22PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> > >       * Integrate qemu+seabios upstream into the build (Stefano has
>> > >         posted patches, I guess they need refreshing and reposting).
>> No
>> > >         change in default qemu for 4.2.
>> >
>> > Anthony's PCI passthrough patches?
>>
>> Right. And Anthony's save/restore patches as well.
>
> Since these are dependent on external factors (qemu upstream) are we
> willing to block our own release for them?
>
> Given that upstream qemu won't be the default in this release I think
> the answer is "no", although obviously they are nice to haves.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:30:54 +0000
> From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>       "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell
>       <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>,      Stefano Stabellini
>       <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete
>       test-i386-i386-xl
> Message-ID: <20244.13470.956567.815603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete
> test-i386-i386-xl"):
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> ...
>> > So as you were the author of the original patch, can you please try to
>> > reproduce the problem and fix it ?
>> >
>>
>> Already on it.
>
> Great, thanks.  If you need any help, or to borrow the machine from my
> test pool, or something, just let me know.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
> From: David TECHER <davidtecher@xxxxxxxx>
> To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pasi K?rkk?inen
>       <pasik@xxxxxx>
> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "Keir \(Xen.org\)"
>       <keir@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>       "Tim \(Xen.org\)" <tim@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson
>       <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,    Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Re :  RFC: Still TODO for 4.2?
> Message-ID:
>       <1326724747.73001.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I told a couple weeks ago that I will try to submit the patches.
>
> Sorry I am not submitting patches. I was/am very busy these last weeks.
>
>
> I will try to submit patches for VGA passthrough this week-end.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> David.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  De?: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ??: Pasi K?rkk?inen <pasik@xxxxxx>
> Cc?: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Keir (Xen.org)
> <keir@xxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ian
> Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tim (Xen.org) <tim@xxxxxxx>; Jan
> Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Envoy? le : Lundi 16 Janvier 2012 14h28
> Objet?: Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2?
>
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 17:25 +0000, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote:
>>
>> - Also there's a bunch of VGA passthru related patches,
>> that I once volunteered to collect/rebase/cleanup/repost myself,
>> but I still haven't had time for that :(
>
> I'm not going to include this in the list unless someone steps up and
> starts submitting patches.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/attachments/20120116/a7a09a9a/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:40:07 +0000
> From: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx, Jean Guyader
>       <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [passthrough] Change init for pt_pci_host
>       return value.
> Message-ID:
>       <1326724807-25718-1-git-send-email-jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="fixed"
>
>
> With an init of -1 all the return value smaller than a double word
> will be prefixed with "f"s.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  hw/pass-through.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 0001-passthrough-Change-init-for-pt_pci_host-return-value.patch
> Type: text/x-patch
> Size: 396 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:
> <http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/attachments/20120116/ec356780/attachment.bin>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:40:27 +0000
> From: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx, Jean Guyader
>       <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] intel gpu passthrough: Expose vendor
>       specific        pci cap on host bridge.
> Message-ID:
>       <1326724827-25759-1-git-send-email-jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="fixed"
>
>
> Some versions of the Windows Intel GPU driver expect the vendor
> PCI capability to be there on the host bridge config space when
> passing through a Intel GPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  hw/pt-graphics.c |   51
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 0001-intel-gpu-passthrough-Expose-vendor-specific-pci-cap.patch
> Type: text/x-patch
> Size: 2551 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:
> <http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/attachments/20120116/fa8c7dac/attachment.bin>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:43:54 +0800
> From: Nai Xia <nai.xia@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Grzegorz Milos <Grzegorz.Milos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Is this a racing bug in page_make_sharable()?
> Message-ID:
>       <CAPQyPG5tW+Y2Snyf8qF8nn5pYcwrz=craTeedv_nAP8r8c9Q-A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi Grzegorz,
>
> As I understand, the purpose of the code in page_make_sharable()
> checking the ref count is to ensure that nobody unexpected is working
> on the page, and so we can migrate it to dom_cow, right?
>
> ====
>     /* Check if the ref count is 2. The first from PGT_allocated, and
>      * the second from get_page_and_type at the top of this function */
>     if(page->count_info != (PGC_allocated | (2 + expected_refcnt)))
>     {
>         /* Return type count back to zero */
>         put_page_and_type(page);
>         spin_unlock(&d->page_alloc_lock);
>         return -E2BIG;
>     }
> ====
>
> However, it seems to me that this ref check and the following page
> migration is not atomic( although the operations for type_info ref
> check seems good) i.e. it's possible that it passed this ref
> check but just before it goes to dom_cow, someone else gets this page?
> As far as I know, in Linux kernel's similar scenarios, they do
> ref-freezing
> tricks.
>
> And if we don't need to worry about this racing case, then what is
> this check trying to ensure?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Nai
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
> End of Xen-devel Digest, Vol 83, Issue 233
> ******************************************
>



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