On 10/11 09:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.11.11 at 09:44, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In the native implementation I neither see the XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range
> case getting actually handled in the main switch (did you mean to change
> xatp.space to XENMAPSPACE_gmfn in that case?), nor do I see how you
> communicate back how many of the pages were successfully processed in
> the event of an error in the middle of the processing or when a
> continuation is required.
>
Yes, that is true.
> But with the patch being pretty hard to read, maybe I'm simply
> overlooking something?
>
Sorry about that, moving code arround doesn't really look code
on patches.
I now changed xenmem_add_to_physmap to take a pointer
on xatp so I can modify the argument directly (decrementing size and
incrementing gpfn and idx).
Then if xenmem_add_to_physmap return EGAIN I'll copy xtap back to
the guest handler and create the native continuation.
Also a case was missing for XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range in xenmem_add_to_physmap.
> Further (I realize I should have commented on this earlier) I think that
> in order to allow forward progress you should not check for preemption
> on the very first iteration of each (re-)invocation. That would also
> guarantee no behavioral change to the original single-page variants.
>
Agreed, I now only check for preemption in the case of new space
(XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range), so the original behavior should be preserved.
> >--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c
> >+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c
> >@@ -63,6 +63,16 @@ int compat_arch_memory_op(int op, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void)
> >arg)
> >
> > XLAT_add_to_physmap(nat, &cmp);
> > rc = arch_memory_op(op, guest_handle_from_ptr(nat, void));
> >+ if ( rc < 0 )
> >+ return rc;
> >+
> >+ if ( rc == __HYPERVISOR_memory_op )
> >+ hypercall_xlat_continuation(NULL, 0x2, nat, arg);
> >+
> >+ XLAT_add_to_physmap(&cmp, nat);
> >+
> >+ if ( copy_to_guest(arg, &cmp, 1) )
> >+ return -EFAULT;
>
> Other than in the XENMEM_[gs]et_pod_target you (so far, subject to the
> above comment resulting in a behavioral change) don't have any real
> outputs here, and hence there's no need to always to the outbound
> translation - i.e. all of this could be moved into the if ()'s body.
>
Done.
Thanks for the review,
Jean
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home