[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003151108151.27222@kaball-desktop>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:04:16 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
"Yaozu (Eddie) Dong" <eddie.dong@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@...citrix.com>,
Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][v9 4/6] xen/hvm: Xen PV extension of HVM
initialization
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HVM_PV
> > > +
> > > +#define XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED (1u<< 0)
> >
> > Why is this flag needed? As far as I understand it, there's no real
> > underlying hypervisor change needed to make HVM access to pv clock
> > possible; its just a field in the shared_info's vcpu struct after all.
> > Even if you enable this feature unconditionally, the user can still
> > control whether the Xen clocksource is used with the "clocksource="
> > kernel command-line parameter.
>
> But we should make sure Xen have ability to support such kind of operation.
> The CPUID would show if Xen have such ability, and if it does, the feature
> would be enabled unconditionally. Guest kernel always enable all features it
> can do unconditionally, but Xen should offer the support for them.
>
In my opinion once the guest knows that is running on Xen HVM (that is
from xen_cpuid_base() or xen_para_available()) it should assume
that the pv clocksource is available, therefore XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED
should not be needed.
In other words the mere presence of Xen should imply
XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED.
> > Also, there's nothing about this which is 64-bit specific is there?
>
> 64 bit things are mostly evtchn/interrupt related. I think no such limit here.
> But I think it's better to do it step by step, so leave it after evtchn
> solution settled.
>
Do you mean write generic code now, then introduce the 64 bit
limitation later? Or the other way around?
I don't have a strong opinion here so I am OK with both approaches, but
I would prefer to add the limitation later (maybe we'll be able to make
it work on 32 bit too...).
--
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