| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][RESEND] only BSP can really do clear_all_shadow_
On 15 Apr 2006, at 20:05, Li, Xin B wrote:
Why can only VCPU0 do this? Is the argument to
clear_all_shadow_status() always current domain? If so that should
probably be asserted, or the argument removed.
Both Jun and I think clear_all_shadow_status is overkilled,
update_pagetables should have done the cleanup things, so we thought
about removing it, but the test shows that removing it breaks windows
on
PAE xen, and I'm looking at this issue.
Actually, this patch should be a right direction, and changeset 9626
has
alrealdy changed shadow.c like what this patch does to shadow32.c.
Okay. But weren't we going to *get rid* of shadow32.c at some point? :-)
For long term, maybe we will move to per vcpu shadow.
I wondered about that but wasn't convinced it'd help with scalability.
Fundamentally, if VCPU-A updates a guest pte that is in VCPU-B's shadow
cache, B's shadowed version has to be modified no later than the next
TLB flush on VCPU-B. So there will still be potentially significant
synchronisation across shadow caches although maybe some cunningness
can avoid bad behaviour in most cases.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home