[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] x86: make mem-paging configuarable and default it to off for being unsupported
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:16:24PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.04.2021 11:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c > >> @@ -155,8 +155,10 @@ int compat_arch_memory_op(unsigned long > >> case XENMEM_get_sharing_shared_pages: > >> return mem_sharing_get_nr_shared_mfns(); > >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_PAGING > >> case XENMEM_paging_op: > >> return mem_paging_memop(guest_handle_cast(arg, > >> xen_mem_paging_op_t)); > >> +#endif > >> > >> #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SHARING > >> case XENMEM_sharing_op: > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.c > >> @@ -994,8 +994,10 @@ long subarch_memory_op(unsigned long cmd > >> case XENMEM_get_sharing_shared_pages: > >> return mem_sharing_get_nr_shared_mfns(); > >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_PAGING > >> case XENMEM_paging_op: > >> return mem_paging_memop(guest_handle_cast(arg, > >> xen_mem_paging_op_t)); > >> +#endif > > > > I would create a dummy handler when !CONFIG_MEM_PAGING in > > asm-x86/mem_paging.h. > > I was simply following the neighboring mem-sharing approach, > which you've stripped here, but which is still visible in the > xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c change above. I think the two > are helpful to be similar in such aspects. > > >> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h > >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h > >> @@ -136,11 +136,16 @@ typedef unsigned int p2m_query_t; > >> #define P2M_PAGEABLE_TYPES (p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_rw) \ > >> | p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_logdirty) ) > >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_PAGING > >> #define P2M_PAGING_TYPES (p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_paging_out) \ > >> | p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_paged) \ > >> | p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_paging_in)) > >> > >> #define P2M_PAGED_TYPES (p2m_to_mask(p2m_ram_paged)) > >> +#else > >> +#define P2M_PAGING_TYPES 0 > >> +#define P2M_PAGED_TYPES 0 > >> +#endif > > > > Since you don't guard the p2m related paged types in p2m_type_t is it > > worth having diverging P2M_{PAGING/PAGED}_TYPES? > > > > I guess it might be required in order to force the compiler to DCE > > without having to add yet more CONFIG_MEM_PAGING guards? > > Indeed, this is the reason. > > > I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the code should be > > removed, IMO it's best to start by making it off by default at build > > time and remove it in a later release? > > Matches my way of thinking. I also wouldn't want to be the one to > delete code completely out of the blue. Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |