From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Egger Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:01:07 +0200 Message-ID: <201004161201.07407.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> References: <201004151520.31527.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> <20100415152542.GA19601@whitby.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100415152542.GA19601@whitby.uk.xensource.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Tim Deegan Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thursday 15 April 2010 17:25:42 Tim Deegan wrote: > At 15:57 +0100 on 15 Apr (1271347060), Keir Fraser wrote: > > > patch 04: obsolete gfn_to_mfn_current and remove it. > > > gfn_to_mfn_current is redundant to > > > gfn_to_mfn(current->domain, ...) > > > This patch reduces the size of patch 17. > > > > This one (at least -- there may be others) needs an ack from Tim. > > I've already asked for some measurement to show the effect of removing > gfn_to_mfn_current() on shadow pagetable performance. Yes, I couldn't do since tools were broken and couldn't even start a guest. This is fixed since c/s 21187. > The other patches that I was CC'd on look mostly OK, except for > introducing some clunky (and wide) y_to_z(x_to_y(foo_to_x(foo))) > patterns that I'm sure could be done a bit more neatly. Yes, you see that pattern in patch 06/18. In patch 17/18 you see that pattern changed again in a better shape. BTW: I think, I forgot to CC you in patch 18/18. > I'll read the PDFs tomorrow and have a proper look at the patches then. Thanks. Christoph > Cheers, > > Tim. > > > > patch 05: hvm_set_cr0: Allow guest to switch into paged real mode. > > > This makes hvmloader boot when we use xen in xen. > > > > What if we are not running a nestedhvm guest, or otherwise on a system > > not supporting paged real mode? Is it wise to remove the check in that > > case? Even where we *do* support nestedhvm, should all guest writes to > > CR0 be allowed to bypass that check (Isn't paged real mode > > architecturally only allowed to be entered via VMRUN)? > > > > More generally, I will allow these patches to sit for a week or two to > > give time for potential reviewers to digest them. > > > > Thanks, > > Keir > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel -- ---to satisfy European Law for business letters: Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632