[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48EB93CC.3070504@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:52:28 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, jason.wessel@...driver.com,
richardj_moore@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces
K.Prasad wrote:
>>
>>> Presently I find plenty of set_debugreg() calls from kvm/ which will
>>> modify the registers directly and break the breakpoint register
>>> management brought-in through the patch.
>>>
>>>
>> If kvm restores the registers, should there be any problem?
>>
>>
> No, it should be fine although I don't understand how the exception
> handler is invoked in KVM without the use of notifier or a hook in
> die_debug (or have they replaced code at a layer much below that?).
>
>
kvm debug traps don't work by raising a debug exception; instead, the
guest #VMEXITs into the host. The kernel debug handler will not be invoked.
> Apart from the doubt I've stated above, if they operate by replacing
> the breakpoint register contents before a context switch from KVM to
> other processes, they might in fact help maximise its utilisation.
>
Yes. As I mentioned, right now we avoid swapping the debug registers if
we aren't going to context switch or exit to userspace, but if you give
us a predicate that tells us whether you are interested in the debug
registers, we can swap them eagerly rather than lazily.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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