[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36e256ea-7255-f364-bfac-69c39dc7d447@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:35:17 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Per Bilse <Per.Bilse@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
"open list:X86 ENTRY CODE" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE"
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updates to Xen hypercall preemption
On 22.06.23 15:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/06/2023 9:26 am, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 07:22:53AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
>>> The hypercalls we are talking of are synchronous ones. They are running
>>> in the context of the vcpu doing the call (like a syscall from userland is
>>> running in the process context).
>> (so time actually passes from the guest's pov?)
>
> Yes. And in principle it's wired into stolen time.
Sure? I think stolen time is only increased if the vcpu is being descheduled
by Xen. Synchronous hypercalls should be accounted for the calling vcpu.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists