From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
virtualization@lists.osdl.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:56:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44D6D60A.5040108@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200608070738.13768.ak@muc.de>
Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> +void apply_paravirt(struct paravirt_patch *start, struct paravirt_patch *end)
>>
>
> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
> or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
> reason you can't use it?)
>
> Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many
The difference is that every hypervisor wants its own patched
instruction sequence, which may require a specialized patching
mechanism. If you're simply patching in calls, then it isn't a big
deal, but you may also want to patch in real inlined code for some
operations (like sti/cli equivalents). The alternatives are to allow
each backend to deal with its own patching (perhaps with common
functions abstracted out as they appear), or have a common set of
patching machinery which can deal with all users. The former seems simpler.
J
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:56:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44D6D60A.5040108@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200608070738.13768.ak@muc.de>
Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> +void apply_paravirt(struct paravirt_patch *start, struct paravirt_patch *end)
>>
>
> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
> or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
> reason you can't use it?)
>
> Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many
The difference is that every hypervisor wants its own patched
instruction sequence, which may require a specialized patching
mechanism. If you're simply patching in calls, then it isn't a big
deal, but you may also want to patch in real inlined code for some
operations (like sti/cli equivalents). The alternatives are to allow
each backend to deal with its own patching (perhaps with common
functions abstracted out as they appear), or have a common set of
patching machinery which can deal with all users. The former seems simpler.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-07 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-07 4:43 [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:45 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86 paravirt_ops: paravirt_desc.h for native descriptor ops Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:47 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:47 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 4:48 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 5:14 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 5:38 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 5:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2006-08-07 5:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 5:39 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 5:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 5:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 6:13 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 6:20 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 6:20 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 7:27 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 5:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86 paravirt_ops: paravirt_desc.h for native descriptor ops Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 5:40 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 7:50 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 7:50 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 8:53 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2006-08-07 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2006-08-07 5:22 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 5:30 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 5:43 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 6:02 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 6:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-08-07 6:03 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 6:16 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 6:04 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 6:04 ` Rusty Russell
2006-08-07 6:17 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 6:17 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 6:27 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2006-08-07 6:27 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2006-08-07 7:34 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-08-07 8:40 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2006-08-07 8:40 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2006-08-07 17:54 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-08-07 17:54 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-08-07 20:51 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-08-07 20:51 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-08-08 1:59 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-08 1:59 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44D6D60A.5040108@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.