[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ACD0DEE.80404@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:53:50 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
kurt.hackel@...cle.com, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation
On 10/07/2009 11:51 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/07/09 14:37, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> If the guest does a RMW on the version, but the host does not (copying
>> it from somewhere else), then the guest RMW can be lost.
>>
>> Looking at the code, that's what kvm does:
>>
>> vcpu->hv_clock.version += 2;
>>
>> shared_kaddr = kmap_atomic(vcpu->time_page, KM_USER0);
>>
>> memcpy(shared_kaddr + vcpu->time_offset,&vcpu->hv_clock,
>> sizeof(vcpu->hv_clock));
>>
>> so a guest-side ++version can be lost.
>>
> I see, yes. The Xen code explicitly reads back the guest version and
> increments that (I realize now that's what you meant by guest-private
> version). If you were to have a second version number it would have to
> be separated as well to avoid being overwritten by the hypervisor.
>
Yes. We have the space since a cacheline is 64 bytes (minimum) vs 32
bytes of pvclock data.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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