[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [Very RFC PATCH 3/3] livepatch: Initial ARM32/64 support.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:27:08PM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Konrad, > > On 12/08/2016 22:50, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:00:47PM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/current.h > > > > b/xen/include/asm-arm/current.h > > > > index 65c0cdf..f4fcfd6 100644 > > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/current.h > > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/current.h > > > > @@ -33,8 +33,15 @@ static inline struct cpu_info *get_cpu_info(void) > > > > > > > > #define guest_cpu_user_regs() (&get_cpu_info()->guest_cpu_user_regs) > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH > > > > +#define switch_stack_and_jump(stack, fn) > > > > \ > > > > + asm volatile ("mov sp,%0;" > > > > \ > > > > + "bl check_for_livepatch_work;" > > > > \ > > > > > > May I ask why check_for_livepatch_work is called in switch_stack_and_jump? > > > > From 29f4ab0b0a4ff62589af35b7cbc2334e1d9acdcd: > > To perform and action on a payload, the hypercall sets up a data > > structure to schedule the work. A hook is added in the > > reset_stack_and_jump > > to check for work and execute it if needed (specifically we check an > > per-cpu flag to make this as quick as possible). > > > > In this way, patches can be applied with all CPUs idle and without > > stacks. The first CPU to run check_for_xsplice_work() becomes the > > master and triggers a reschedule softirq to trigger all the other CPUs > > to enter check_for_xsplice_work() with no stack. Once all CPUs > > have rendezvoused, all CPUs disable their IRQs and NMIs are ignored. > > The system is then quiscient and the master performs the action. > > After this, all CPUs enable IRQs and NMIs are re-enabled. > > > I am a bit confused, switch_stack_and_jump will only be called on ARM when a > vCPU is created. So why do you want to check livepatch at that time? > > After looking at the x86 version, I noticed that reset_stack_and_jump is > called every time Xen returns to the guest, correct? Yes. I assumed ARM was the same. > > If so, you may want to call check_for_livepatch_work in > leave_hypervisor_tail instead. The latter will be call every time Xen > returns to the guest. Oooh. Thanks! > > Regards, > > -- > Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |