[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B58770A.3050107@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:47:22 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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 01/21/2010 01:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> You can also just emulate the state transition -- since you know
>> you're dealing with a flat protected-mode or long-mode OS (and just
>> make that a condition of enabling the feature) you don't have to deal
>> with all the strange combinations of directions that an unrestricted
>> x86 event can take. Since it's an exception, it is unconditional.
>
> Do you mean create the stack frame manually? I'd really like to avoid
> that for many reasons, one of which is performance (need to do all the
> virt-to-phys walks manually), the other is that we're certain to end up
> with something horribly underspecified. I'd really like to keep as
> close as possible to the hardware. For the alternative approach, see Xen.
>
I obviously didn't mean to do something which didn't look like a
hardware-delivered exception. That by itself provides a tight spec.
The performance issue is real, of course.
Obviously, the design of VT-x was before my time at Intel, so I'm not
familiar with why the tradeoffs that were done they way they were.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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