Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Don't track all memory when enabling log dirty to track vram

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.05.14 at 10:37, <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich wrote on 2014-05-21:
>> You didn't in any way negate the condition of superpage support to be
>> added post-4.4 in order for your other change to go in: Neither
>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-02/msg01230.html 
>>  nor
>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-02/msg01236.html 
>>  have been responded to by you. By not doing so, to me at least you
>> implicitly accepted the condition. And by now refusing to meet it, you
>> basically tell us that we shouldn't be doing compromises like this with
>> you in the future.
> 
> I have said before I am totally unware of it. And I know it only two days 
> ago after someone told me. So please do not confuse this with the thing what 
> we are discussing now. If you think I gave a promise implicitly at that time, 
> I am sorry to let you think so.
> 
> As I said in previous thread, if we can prove that add hugepage for the 
> separate VT-d page table is the only choice to solve problem, then now I am 
> promising that I will do it ASAP. But till now, I didn't see any point that 
> we must to have it. To me, it is still a nice to have feature.

Btw., I think I just spotted a second thing not working without split
page tables: mem-access (which doesn't and imo shouldn't depend
on !need_iommu(), other than mem-sharing and mem-paging)
likewise has the potential of creating entries resulting in IOMMU
faults.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel