[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [V6 PATCH 6.2/7] pvh dom0: Add and remove foreign pages
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:27:22 -0800 Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:40:41 +0000 > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> On 14.12.13 at 03:48, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> wrote: > > >> Also, Jan may have an opinion about whether a teardown operation > > >> that has to walk each p2m entry would have to be made > > >> preemptible. I'm not sure where we draw the line on such things. > > > > > > Since at present teardown cleanup of foreign is not really that > > > important as its only applicable to dom0, let me submit another > > > patch for it on Mon with few ideas. That would also keep this > > > patch size reasonable, and keep you from having to look at the > > > same code over and over. > > > > > > So, please take a look at the version below with above two fixes. > > > If you approve it, i can resubmit the entire series rebased to > > > latest with your ack on Monday, and the series can go in while we > > > resolve the p2m teardown. > > > > Going through the patch again, I'm not seeing any loop being > > added. Am I missing something here? > > Yes. Since the destruction of p2m leaking foreign pages only applies > to control domain being destroyed, i don't think it is that critical > that part get into 4.4. So, I'm submitting a separate patch for it, > like said above. > > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c > > > @@ -36,8 +36,6 @@ > > > > > > #define > > > atomic_read_ept_entry(__pepte) \ > > > ( (ept_entry_t) { .epte = read_atomic(&(__pepte)->epte) } ) > > > -#define atomic_write_ept_entry(__pepte, > > > __epte) \ > > > - write_atomic(&(__pepte)->epte, (__epte).epte) > > > > > > #define is_epte_present(ept_entry) ((ept_entry)->epte & 0x7) > > > #define is_epte_superpage(ept_entry) ((ept_entry)->sp) > > > @@ -46,6 +44,25 @@ static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t > > > *e) return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid); > > > } > > > > > > +static inline void write_ept_entry(ept_entry_t *entryptr, > > > ept_entry_t *new) > > > > So why do you drop the "atomic_" prefix here? > > To distinguish it from the older atomic_* macro which did nothing but > atomically write the entry. But if it helps get your approval, I added > atomic prefix. > > > Also the second parameter could be "const"... > > Ok. > > Final version below: Please ignore this, sending V7 with changes to this again after comments from Julien. thanks mukesh _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |