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-ia64-devel

Re: the P2M/VP patch merge plan (was Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][RFC][T

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:30:17PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> [...]
> > > > The following is what I notice now.
> > > >
> > > > - pgd_populate(), pud_populate(), pmd_populate()
> > > >   What if two cpu try to populate same virtual address?
> > > >   Given that page allocation on demand is now removed, it might be
> > > > possible to all necessary pgd/pud/pmd/pte page is allocate at domain
> > > > creation.
> This could be easily fixed.  However there is also no lock in the current 
> Xen, 
> so I think the kernel never does that.

Although current linux kernel doesn't,
I will add such a code to avoid oom-kiler in dom0 when vt-i domain
is created.
Hmm, it doesn't seem that you have the necessity of protecting the p2m
table. On the other hand I have.
I'll work on adding protection the p2m table. Is it okay?
Later we may want to evaluate its peformance impact though.


> > > > - guest_physmap_add_page()
> > > >     assign_domain_page_replace()
> > > >       ptep_get_and_clear()
> > > >                       <<<<<<<<<<<< what if another cpu does set_pte()
> > > > here? set_pte()
> > > >     set_gpfn_from_mfn()
> We should create a ptep_get_and_replace.
> Is it enough ?

Just for the integrity of the p2m table, it might be enough.
But I'm not sure.


> Since kernel is not supposed to access to pages being replaced, this 
> shouldn't 
> happen, should it ?

What do you mean by 'not supposed'?
I think that nothing guarantees it.
Xen shouldn't rely on the fact that xenLinux just doesn't but a guest
domain surely can.


> > > > - memory ordering
> > > >   set_pte() doesn't have any memory relase semantics.
> > > >   And readers (i.e. *(pte)) doesn't have acquire semantics.
> > > >   I guess some memory barrier is required.
> > > >   (spin lock means memory barrier)
> I have added mp().

typo? mb()? 

-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel