[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081225151757.GA25117@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:17:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
Benjamin Serebrin <benjamin.serebrin@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Subject: Re: kvm vmload/vmsave vs tss.ist
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> I would like to remove this limitation. I see several ways to go about
> it:
>
> 1. Drop the use of IST
>
> This would reduce the (perceived) reliability of the kernel and would
> probably not be welcomed.
> hpa/Ingo, any opinions?
i think we should actually do #1 unconditionally.
ISTs are bad for the native kernel too. They have various nasty
complications in the stack walker (and hence they _reduce_ reliability in
practice), and they are non-preemptible as well. Plus we have the
maximum-stack-footprint ftrace plugin now, which can remove any perception
about how bad the worst-case stack footprint is in practice.
If it ever becomes an issue we could also soft-switch to a larger (per
CPU) exception stack from the exception handlers themselves. The
architectural stack footprint of the various critical exceptions are
calculatable and low - so we could switch away and get almost the kind of
separation that ISTs give. There's no deep reason to actually make use of
hw switched ISTs.
So feel free to send a patch that just standardizes the critical
exceptions to use the regular kernel stack. (I havent actually tried this
but it should be relatively simple to implement. Roadblocks are possible.)
Ingo
--
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