Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07/12] x86/virt/guest/xen: Remove use of pgd_list from the Xen guest code

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/06/15 15:19, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/16/2015 10:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 15/06/15 21:35, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/06/15 10:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 11:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>> xen_mm_pin_all()/unpin_all() are used to implement full guest
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> suspend/restore. It's a stop-all method that needs to iterate
>>>>>> through all
>>>>>> allocated pgds in the system to fix them up for Xen's use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This code uses pgd_list, probably because it was an easy interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we want to remove the pgd_list, so convert the code over to
>>>>>> walk all
>>>>>> tasks in the system. This is an equivalent method.
>>>> It is not equivalent because pgd_alloc() now populates entries in
>>>> pgds that are
>>>> not visible to xen_mm_pin_all() (note how the original code adds the
>>>> pgd to the
>>>> pgd_list in pgd_ctor() before calling pgd_prepopulate_pmd()).  These
>>>> newly
>>>> allocated page tables won't be correctly converted on suspend/resume
>>>> and the new
>>>> process will die after resume.
>>> So how should the Xen logic be fixed for the new scheme? I can't say
>>> I can see
>>> through the paravirt complexity here.
>> Actually, since we freeze_processes() before trying to pin page tables,
>> I think it should be ok as-is.
>>
>> I'll put the patch through some tests.
> 
> Actually, I just ran this through a couple of boot/suspend/resume tests
> and didn't see any issues (with the one fix I mentioned to Ingo
> earlier). On unstable Xen only.

In which case this can have a:

Reviewed-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks.

David

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