[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091103202923.GB4962@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:29:24 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] hw-breakpoints: Rewrite the hw-breakpoints layer
on top of perf events
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:22:04PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Thinking about it, this check should cover every cases:
> >
> > if (vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs || __get_cpu_var(dr7) & DR_GLOBAL_ENABLE_MASK)
> >
> > If we have __get_cpu_var(dr7) & DR_GLOBAL_ENABLE_MASK, it means there is an
> > active breakpoint and then we should restore the current state.
> >
>
> And what about (__get_cpu_var(dr7) & DR_GLOBAL_ENABLE_MASK) only? Would
> you be able to live with unsync'ed hardware and software states?
>
> Jan
>
But if the guest has breakpoints activated, the host will inherit
them, which is really not something we want, assuming vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs
already protects us about that.
--
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