|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][v4] PV extension of HVM(hybrid) support in Xen
On Monday 01 March 2010 18:21:27 Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 09:43 +0000 on 01 Mar (1267436621), Sheng Yang wrote:
> > @@ -3109,6 +3117,36 @@
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > + case HVMOP_enable_pv: {
>
> Why does this have to be explicitly enabled? Can't you just notice that
> a domain is using the evtchnop hypercalls?
The issue is pv timer. It assumed the tsc start from 0, which is different
from HVM. So I'd like to give it a explicit call here. Otherwise it can be
hooked in evtchn binding, but I don't think that's clear...
> > + struct xen_hvm_pv_type a;
> > + struct domain *d;
> > +
> > + if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) )
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + rc = rcu_lock_target_domain_by_id(a.domid, &d);
>
> Domains do this to each other? It looks like it has surprising
> side-effects.
Should not allowed... I think a.domid should always be the current domain.
Replace it with DOMID_SELF?
> > + if ( rc != 0 )
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) )
> > + goto param_fail5;
> > +
> > + rc = xsm_hvm_param(d, op);
> > + if ( rc )
> > + goto param_fail5;
> > +
> > + if (a.flags & HVM_PV_EVTCHN) {
> > + update_domain_wallclock_time(d);
> > + hvm_funcs.set_tsc_offset(d->vcpu[0], 0);
>
> Only vcpu 0? Doesn't this do horrible things to timekeeping in the guest?
The other vcpus are initialized when it is brought up. TSC started from 0 is a
fundamental assumption for pv clock in Linux...
>
> > + d->hvm_pv_enabled |= XEN_HVM_PV_EVTCHN_ENABLED;
> > + printk("HVM: PV featured evtchn enabled\n");
>
> Please remove your debugging printks.
OK...
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
>
> > + }
> > +param_fail5:
> > + rcu_unlock_domain(d);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > default:
> > {
> > gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Bad HVM op %ld.\n", op);
>
> Tim.
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
|
|