[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5580326D.30006@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:27:57 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Denys Vlasenko" <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/virt/guest/xen: Remove use of pgd_list from
the Xen guest code
On 16/06/15 15:19, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/16/2015 10:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 15/06/15 21:35, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/06/15 10:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 11:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>> xen_mm_pin_all()/unpin_all() are used to implement full guest
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> suspend/restore. It's a stop-all method that needs to iterate
>>>>>> through all
>>>>>> allocated pgds in the system to fix them up for Xen's use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This code uses pgd_list, probably because it was an easy interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we want to remove the pgd_list, so convert the code over to
>>>>>> walk all
>>>>>> tasks in the system. This is an equivalent method.
>>>> It is not equivalent because pgd_alloc() now populates entries in
>>>> pgds that are
>>>> not visible to xen_mm_pin_all() (note how the original code adds the
>>>> pgd to the
>>>> pgd_list in pgd_ctor() before calling pgd_prepopulate_pmd()). These
>>>> newly
>>>> allocated page tables won't be correctly converted on suspend/resume
>>>> and the new
>>>> process will die after resume.
>>> So how should the Xen logic be fixed for the new scheme? I can't say
>>> I can see
>>> through the paravirt complexity here.
>> Actually, since we freeze_processes() before trying to pin page tables,
>> I think it should be ok as-is.
>>
>> I'll put the patch through some tests.
>
> Actually, I just ran this through a couple of boot/suspend/resume tests
> and didn't see any issues (with the one fix I mentioned to Ingo
> earlier). On unstable Xen only.
In which case this can have a:
Reviewed-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Thanks.
David
--
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