WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] 2.6.32 PV Xen donU guest panic on nested call to arch_en

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] 2.6.32 PV Xen donU guest panic on nested call to arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode()
From: Chuck Anderson <chuck.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:21:45 -0800
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:24:41 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4D0006A3.8010307@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4CFED74D.1040304@xxxxxxxxxx> <4D0006A3.8010307@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608)
Jeremy,
Is it possible for an ongoing lazy mode update to have batched some MMU updates; an interrupt occurs; an interrupt routine does a non-lazy MMU update for a PTE that is also in the lazy update queue; that update is overwritten on return from the interrupt when the update queue is flushed? Or are the PTE updates protected by a lock? If they are, wouldn't we deadlock in the interrupt routine when it tries to obtain that (I assume) spinlock?
Chuck

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Disabling interrupts would cause too much latency.  I think we may have
done this at one point, but it is very antisocial.

Since lazy mode is effectively disabled in interrupt handlers anyway, it
should just be enough to ignore enter/leave requests.  Does this work
for you?

From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:21:16 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: don't enter/leave lazy mode in interrupts.

We already ignore the current state of lazy mode in interrupts, but we
should also ignore any attempt to enter/leave lazy mode within
an interrupt context.

enter_lazy() will BUG if it sees an attempt at a nested entry to lazy
mode, which is generally an error.  However, it's possible that an
interrupt handler may do something that would trigger a batched MMU
update, for example, and that could interrupt an existing batched update.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel