[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1 1/3] x86/ept: remove unnecessary sync after resolving misconfigured entries
>>> On 12.11.15 at 17:18, <dvrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/11/2015 12:22, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.11.15 at 18:37, <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >>> @@ -644,7 +644,6 @@ bool_t ept_handle_misconfig(uint64_t gpa) >>> spurious = curr->arch.hvm_vmx.ept_spurious_misconfig; >>> rc = resolve_misconfig(p2m, PFN_DOWN(gpa)); >>> curr->arch.hvm_vmx.ept_spurious_misconfig = 0; >>> - ept_sync_domain(p2m); >>> >>> p2m_unlock(p2m); >>> >>> @@ -692,12 +691,7 @@ ept_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long >>> gfn, mfn_t mfn, >>> /* Carry out any eventually pending earlier changes first. */ >>> ret = resolve_misconfig(p2m, gfn); >>> if ( ret < 0 ) >>> - { >>> - ept_sync_domain(p2m); >> >> Is avoiding this sync really a win? It shouldn't be needed according >> to your analysis, I agree, but if it doesn't do any harm I'd prefer it >> to be kept (and the deletion above to be converted to a similar, >> conditional sync too). After all there also shouldn't be any error >> here, yet if there was one, wanting to be on the safe side calls for >> doing a sync imo. > > Unnecessary calls to ept_domain_sync() are confusing. Again - if there was an error, how do you know it's unnecessary? But anyway - I'll let the VM maintainers decide. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |