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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/9] x86: skip check for spurious faults for non-present faults

On 05/15/2014 12:22 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Are we chasing hardware errata here?  Or did someone go off and *assume*
>> that the x86 hardware architecture work a certain way?  Or is there
>> something way more subtle going on?
> See Intel Developer's Manual Vol 3 Section, 3rd bullet... This
> is expected behaviour, probably to make copy-on-write faults faster.

Hm, yes.  My memory of this comes from before these formal rules were
written down... I guess there is some wiggle room in there, presumably
as you say, for performance reasons (or implementation leeway, which is
another way to say performance.)

This does make a P bit switch architecturally different from W or NX, so
I'm okay with that, but I would like the patch adjusted in the following

1. Put in an explicit comment about the architectural difference
   between the P bit on one hand and an W and NX on the other; an SDM
   reference is good, and *why* this makes the specific filtering

2. Please use the standard format for multiline comments;

         * blah
         * blah

With that this should be okay.


Xen-devel mailing list



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