[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48086EBC.3070904@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:48 +1000
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
akpm@...l.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault (v2)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@...p.org) wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> thanks Mathieu, i've picked this up into x86.git for more testing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ... but had to drop it due to missing PARAVIRT support which broke the
>>> build. I guess on paravirt we could just initially define
>>> INTERRUPT_RETURN_NMI_SAFE to iret, etc.?
>>>
>> I have not yet implemented Xen's support for paravirtual NMI, so there's no
>> scope for breaking anything from my perspective. When I get around to NMI,
>> I'll work around whatever's there. I don't know if lguest or VMI has any
>> guest NMI support.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>
> I wonder if we could simply paravirtualize the popf instruction, which
> seems to be the only one requiring to run in ring 0.
Hm, I'd need to think about it more. There's more to NMI's than just
the popf.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists