[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 15/18] xen/pvh: Piggyback on PVHVM for grant driver (v2)
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 04:32:03PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 01/01/14 04:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > In PVH the shared grant frame is the PFN and not MFN, > > hence its mapped via the same code path as HVM. > > > > The allocation of the grant frame is done differently - we > > do not use the early platform-pci driver and have an > > ioremap area - instead we use balloon memory and stitch > > all of the non-contingous pages in a virtualized area. > > > > That means when we call the hypervisor to replace the GMFN > > with a XENMAPSPACE_grant_table type, we need to lookup the > > old PFN for every iteration instead of assuming a flat > > contingous PFN allocation. > > > > Lastly, we only use v1 for grants. This is because PVHVM > > is not able to use v2 due to no XENMEM_add_to_physmap > > calls on the error status page (see commit > > 69e8f430e243d657c2053f097efebc2e2cd559f0 > > xen/granttable: Disable grant v2 for HVM domains.) > > > > Until that is implemented this workaround has to > > be in place. > > > > Also per suggestions by Stefano utilize the PVHVM paths > > as they share common functionality. > > > > v2 of this patch moves most of the PVH code out in the > > arch/x86/xen/grant-table driver and touches only minimally > > the generic driver. > [...] > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/grant-table.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/grant-table.c > [...] > > +static int __init xen_pvh_gnttab_setup(void) > > +{ > > + if (!xen_domain()) > > + return -ENODEV; > > + > > + if (!xen_pv_domain()) > > + return -ENODEV; > > + > > + if (!xen_feature(XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap)) > > + return -ENODEV; > > Replace all these with if (!xen_pvh_domain()) ? Yes. > > > @@ -1320,4 +1323,4 @@ static int __gnttab_init(void) > > return gnttab_init(); > > } > > > > -core_initcall(__gnttab_init); > > +core_initcall_sync(__gnttab_init); > > Why has this become _sync? It needs to run _after_ the xen_pvh_gnttab_setup has run (which is at gnttab_init): +core_initcall(xen_pvh_gnttab_setup); /* Call it _before_ __gnttab_init */ Otherwise __gnttab_init will try to use the xen_auto_xlat_grant_frames that has not yet xen_pvh_gnttab_setup setup. Do you think I should: a) expand the comment in 'xen_pvh_gnttab_setup' to mention this, or b) put it in the commit description, or c) what is there is OK? > > David > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |