Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Pasi Kärkkäinen]

Hello!

Does someone have good overview of what Xen/pv_ops related patches are going
in for Linux 2.6.29? If not, I guess I'll browse through kernel changelogs :)

I'd like to update http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps

What's the status of pv_ops dom0 patches for 2.6.29? 

-- Pasi

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Pasi Kärkkäinen]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:21:31PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Does someone have good overview of what Xen/pv_ops related patches are going
> in for Linux 2.6.29? If not, I guess I'll browse through kernel changelogs :)
> 
> I'd like to update http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> 
> What's the status of pv_ops dom0 patches for 2.6.29? 
> 

I just added some lines there.. and changed pv_ops dom0 support for 2.6.30.

Feel free to add what's missing and/or fix those lines to be more detailed..

-- Pasi

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Boris Derzhavets]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1591 bytes --]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote on 02/10/09 :-
  I'm in the middle of migrating 
it all to git, still planning to get at least basic dom0 support into 
the next merge window.  And failing that, it should be easier for people 
to fetch a git tree than piece things together as they have to now.


 It sounds for me like stable 2.6.29 will already have basic Dom0 support,
 at least PV DomUs . F10's, Ubuntu 8.10 Server's, OpenSUSE's 11.1 PV    DomUs   have been installed  and run pretty stable at Xen Unstable Dom0 (2.6.29-rc3) right now on Intel SATA (AHCI) box.  

  If i am wrong about that. Please, advise.



--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@iki.fi> wrote:
From: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 9:40 AM

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:21:31PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Does someone have good overview of what Xen/pv_ops related patches are
going
> in for Linux 2.6.29? If not, I guess I'll browse through kernel
changelogs :)
> 
> I'd like to update http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> 
> What's the status of pv_ops dom0 patches for 2.6.29? 
> 

I just added some lines there.. and changed pv_ops dom0 support for 2.6.30.

Feel free to add what's missing and/or fix those lines to be more
detailed..

-- Pasi

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



      

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2067 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote on 02/10/09 :-
>   I'm in the middle of migrating it all to git, still planning to get 
> at least basic dom0 support into the next merge window. And failing 
> that, it should be easier for people to fetch a git tree than piece 
> things together as they have to now.
>
>  It sounds for me like stable 2.6.29 will already have basic Dom0 support,
>
The next merge window is 2.6.30.

    J

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Boris Derzhavets]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1048 bytes --]

So, one can safely follow XenPVops Wiki instructions until your special announcement .
All the most recent pv_ops patches will still go to the same Mercurial Queue.

Boris

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)
To: bderzhavets@yahoo.com
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 1:28 PM

Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote on 02/10/09 :-
>   I'm in the middle of migrating it all to git, still planning to get
at least basic dom0 support into the next merge window. And failing that, it
should be easier for people to fetch a git tree than piece things together as
they have to now.
> 
>  It sounds for me like stable 2.6.29 will already have basic Dom0 support,
> 
The next merge window is 2.6.30.

   J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



      

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1417 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> So, one can safely follow XenPVops Wiki instructions until your 
> special announcement .
> All the most recent pv_ops patches will still go to the same Mercurial 
> Queue.
>
I'll update the wiki with instructions for using the git version shortly.

    J

RE: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Nakajima, Jun]

On 2/13/2009 10:28:07 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote on 02/10/09 :-
> >   I'm in the middle of migrating it all to git, still planning to
> > get at least basic dom0 support into the next merge window. And
> > failing that, it should be easier for people to fetch a git tree
> > than piece things together as they have to now.
> >
> >  It sounds for me like stable 2.6.29 will already have basic Dom0
> > support,
> >
> The next merge window is 2.6.30.
>
>     J

I noticed that the changes like
        if (xen_initial_domain())
                ...

For example,
static inline unsigned int io_apic_read(unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg)
{
        struct io_apic __iomem *io_apic;

        if (xen_initial_domain())
                return xen_io_apic_read(apic, reg);

        io_apic = io_apic_base(apic);
        writel(reg, &io_apic->index);
        return readl(&io_apic->data);
}


Do you think those need to be wrapped by pv_ops? Probably it's better to replace such functions (e.g. io_apic_read/write) with Xen-specific ones, rather than adding hooks.

             .
Jun Nakajima | Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: Xen/pv_ops features/patches for 2.6.29? (updating wiki)

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> I noticed that the changes like
>         if (xen_initial_domain())
>                 ...
>
> For example,
> static inline unsigned int io_apic_read(unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg)
> {
>         struct io_apic __iomem *io_apic;
>
>         if (xen_initial_domain())
>                 return xen_io_apic_read(apic, reg);
>
>         io_apic = io_apic_base(apic);
>         writel(reg, &io_apic->index);
>         return readl(&io_apic->data);
> }
>
>
> Do you think those need to be wrapped by pv_ops? Probably it's better to replace such functions (e.g. io_apic_read/write) with Xen-specific ones, rather than adding hooks.
>   

That's been a point of contention.  Originally I had some io_apic_ops to 
do that, but I got pushback.  The current patch is more to make a point 
than something I'd expect to be upstreamed (but who knows?).  It isn't 
actually too bad this way, because xen_initial_domain() compiles down to 
a constant 0 if CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 is disabled, and its just a test of a 
variable if its enabled.

    J