[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100118085022.GA30698@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:50:22 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:34:16AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/17/2010 06:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:12 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>Allow paravirtualized guest to do special handling for some page faults.
> >>>
> >>>The patch adds one 'if' to do_page_fault() function. The call is patched
> >>>out when running on physical HW. I ran kernbech on the kernel with and
> >>>without that additional 'if' and result were rawly the same:
> >>
> >>So why not program a different handler address for the #PF/#GP faults
> >>and avoid the if all together?
> >I would gladly use fault vector reserved by x86 architecture, but I am
> >not sure Intel will be happy about it.
> >
>
> That's what it's there for... see Peter Z.'s response.
>
Do you mean I can use one of exception vectors reserved by Intel
(20-31)? What Peter Z says is that I can register my own handler for
#PF and avoid the 'if' in non PV case as far as I understand him.
--
Gleb.
--
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