[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081225164232.GA25195@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:42:32 +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>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: kvm vmload/vmsave vs tss.ist
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> i'd suggest to reuse the irq-stacks for this. Right now on 64-bit we've
> got the following stack layout: 8K process stacks, a 16K IRQ stack on
> each CPU, shared by all IRQs. Then we have the IST stacks with weird
> sizes: debug:8K, the others: 4K.
this has to be done carefully though, as there's a subtle detail here:
right now the pda_irqcount and the pda_irqstackptr logic in entry_64.S is
not re-entry safe and relies on IRQs being off.
If critical exceptions are moved to the IRQ stack then %rsp switching to
the IRQ stack has to be done atomically: instead of using the pda_irqcount
check the %rsp value itself should be checked against pda_irqstackptr - if
it's within that 16K range then we are already on the IRQ stack and do not
need to switch to it but can just use the current %rsp.
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