From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: RE: svm vmexit action sequence
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:28:16 +0200
Message-ID: <46443730.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
References: <46435E16.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
	<907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1CEA@sefsexmb1.amd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1CEA@sefsexmb1.amd.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Mats Petersson <Mats.Petersson@amd.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

One more question: both variants have HVM_SAVE_ALL_NOSEGREGS do a
forced reset of eflags/rflags - what is this needed for? #VMEXIT supposedly=

restores them. Jan=20

>>> "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@amd.com> 10.05.07 18:12 >>>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com=20
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of=20
> Jan Beulich
> Sent: 10 May 2007 17:02
> To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com=20
> Subject: [Xen-devel] svm vmexit action sequence
>=20
> Is there any particular reason why on 32-bits the order is VMLOAD then
> HVM_SAVE_ALL_NOSEGREGS, while on 64-bits its is the other way around?
> Trying to put in the saving of EAX, I could save a=20
> GET_CURRENT() on 32-bits
> if I could order things the same way as on 64-bits.

I don't see any reason why these shouldn't be the same (or at least as
similar as possible).
>=20
> Also, both versions seem to have a redundant GET_CURRENT() right after
> the clgi/sti sequence - again, is there a particular reason for this?

No reason as far as I can tell. Assuming rbx (in 64-bit case) isn't
clobbered by called functions, that is. I can't remember for 64-bit if
rbx is "safe" or not. [It certainly is safe in 32-bit].=20

Thanks for spotting these things.

--
Mats
>=20
> Thanks, Jan
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com=20
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel=20
>=20
>=20
>=20