[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5327291D.60009@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:55:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@...citrix.com>
CC: Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception
On 03/17/2014 05:19 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:33 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> No, the right thing is to unf*ck the Xen braindamage and use eagerfpu as a workaround for the legacy hypervisor versions.
>
> The interface wasn't an accident. In the most common case you'll want
> to clear the bit anyway. In PV mode clearing it would require an extra
> trip up into the hypervisor. So this saves one trip up into the
> hypervisor on every context switch which involves an FPU, at the
> expense of not being able to context-switch away when handling the
> trap.
>
> -George
>
The interface was a complete faceplant, because it caused failures.
You're not infinitely unconstrained since you want to play in the same
sandbox as the native architecture, and if you want to have a hope of
avoiding these kinds of failures you really need to avoid making random
"improvements", certainly not without an explicit guest opt-in (the same
we do for the native CPU architecture when adding new features.)
So if this interface wasn't an accident it was active negligence and
incompetence.
-hpa
--
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