>From: Michael Abd-El-Malek [mailto:mabdelmalek@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2009年4月24日 5:48
>On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Ian Pratt
>>> Sent: 2009年4月21日 11:19
>>>> The mwait instruction is privileged. So I added a new hypercall
>>>> wraps access to the mwait instruction. Thus, my code has a Xen
>>>> component (the new hypercall) and a guest kernel component
>>>> executing the hypercall and for turning off/on the timer interrupts
>>>> around the hypercall). For this code to be merged into Xen, it
>>>> need to add security checks and check whether the
>>>> such a feature.
>>> I seem to recall that some newer CPUs have an mwait
>>> instruction accessible from ring3, using a different opcode --
>>> you might want to check this out.
>>> How do you deal with atomicity of the monitor and mwait? i.e.
>>> how do you stop the hypervisor pre-empting the VM and using
>>> monitor for its own purposes or letting another guest use it?
>> That's a true concern. To use monitor/mwait sanely, software is
>> to not add voluntary context switch in between, however to
>> atomicity at hypercall level, I'm not sure about overall efficiency
>> multiple VMs are all active...
>I'm executing the montior and mwait instructions together in the
>hypercall. The hypercall also takes an argument specifying the old
>value of the memory location. When the mwait instruction
>hypervisor can check and handle any interrupts. I currently return a
>continuation so that the mwait hypercall is rexecuted at the end of
>handling interrupts. I haven't really thought about what if the VM
>gets scheduled out. These are the kinds of issues that I'd like to
>fix if the community wants to add this hypercall. For my
Maybe the reverse that you need consider those issues to persuade
the community or else it's like a very limited usage in real world. This
is something to hold the cpu exclusively with unknown time, unless
you also ensure producer, which writes to monitored address, not
being scheduled out too, which then further limits the actual benefit.
>purposes, I'm not worrying about this :)
>>> Have you thought about HVM guests as well as PV?
>> For HVM guest, both vmexit and vmentry clears any address range
>> monitoring in effect and thus that won't work.
>I imagine this would cause the mwait instruction to execute before a
>write occurs to the memory address? If so, the guest OS can check
>this (by comparing the memory address's value to the previous saved
>value), and reexecute the mwait hypercall. Users of mwait already
>have to check whether their terminating condition has occurred, since
>interrupts cause mwait to return.
yes, then why do you need monitor/mwait, compared to a simple loop
checking data directly? :-)
Xen-devel mailing list