[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

>>> On 10.12.15 at 17:53, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 07:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 08.12.15 at 15:20, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The tables are almost identical and therefore there is little reason to
>>> keep both sets.
>>> PVH needs 3 extra hypercalls:
>>>    optimize TLB flushing. Since HVMlite guests may decide to use them as
>>>    well we can allow these two commands for all guests in an HVM container.
>> I must be missing something here: Especially for the INVLPG variant
>> I can't see what use it could be for a PVH guest, as it necessarily
>> would act on a different address space (the other one may have at
>> least some effect due to hvm_flush_guest_tlbs()).
> This is done out of xen_flush_tlb_others(), which is what PVH guests use.
> And yes --- there indeed seems to be little reason to do that. But it is 
> there now so I am not sure we can make this not work anymore for PVH guests.

PVH is experimental, so we certainly can. I'm pretty determined that
we shouldn't expose functionality to PVH (or HVMlite) that can't be
actually useful to it. I think it was a mistake to allow PVH general
access to all MMUEXT ops (I thought this had been discussed, but I
can't seem to find that discussion going back to v12 of the PVH series,
and I can't even spot the particular patch earlier than in v12).


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.