[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [V15 PATCH 1/2] pvh dom0: Add and remove foreign pages
At 16:50 -0700 on 23 May (1400860212), Mukesh Rathor wrote: > On Sat, 24 May 2014 01:08:49 +0200 > Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > At 15:37 -0700 on 23 May (1400855820), Mukesh Rathor wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 May 2014 21:05:34 +0200 > > > Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > At 16:30 -0700 on 22 May (1400772630), Mukesh Rathor wrote: > > > > > In this patch, a new function, p2m_add_foreign(), is added > > > > > to map pages from a foreign guest into dom0 for various purposes > > > > > like domU creation, running xentrace, etc... Such pages are > > > > > typed p2m_map_foreign. Note, it is the nature of such pages > > > > > that a refcnt is held during their stay in the p2m. The > > > > > refcnt is added and released in the low level ept function > > > > > atomic_write_ept_entry. That macro is converted to a function to > > > > > allow for such refcounting, which only applies to leaf entries > > > > > in the ept. Furthermore, please note that paging/sharing is > > > > > disabled if the controlling or hardware domain is pvh. Any > > > > > enabling of those features would need to ensure refcnt are > > > > > properly maintained for foreign types, or paging/sharing is > > > > > skipped for foreign types. > > > > > > > > > > Also, we change get_pg_owner so it allows foreign mappings for > > > > > pvh. > > > > > > > > But you no longer actually call get_pg_owner() for PVH domains, > > > > right? So that hunk should go away. With that done, > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > We actually need get_pg_owner for the mmuext call by the toolstack > > > when building a PV domain, doing pinning operations on the guest > > > table. > > > > Ah, I see. Let's handle that in a separate patch then, since it's > > now unrelated to foreign mappings in PVH any more. > > > > Having the change where it is seems fine, but I think the correct test > > is (is_pv() && paging_mode_translate()) rather than (!is_pvh() && > > paging_mode_translate()) -- it's a weakness of the PV pagetable ops > > that's being avoided here, rather than any special treatment for PVH. > > Good point, but Jan had a concern on that when I had dropped the if > statement completely, that it would allow HVM guests to go thru. > Hence !is_pvh to let hvm guest continue to fail. Well, in that case I don't insist on it. I'll look at it again as part of the PVH->HVM merge. Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |