Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 07/14/2010 04:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Umm, I know. It's what this whole discussion (non-paravirtualized) is
> all about. And I have a suggestion that should fix the
> non-paravirtualized case _without_ actually touching anything but the
> NMI code itself.
>
> What I tried to say is that the paravirtualized people should take a
> look at my suggestion, and see if they can apply the logic to their
> NMI handling too.

My point is that it's moot (for now) because there is no NMI handing.

>  And in the process totally remove the need for
> paravirtualizing iret, exactly because the approach handles the magic
> NMI lock logic entirely in the NMI handler itself.
>   

Nothing in this thread is ringing any alarm bells from that perspective,
so I don't much mind either way.  When I get around to dealing with
paravirtualized NMI, I'll look at the state of things and see how to go
from there.  (Xen's iret hypercall takes a flag to say whether to unmask
NMIs, which will probably come in handy.)

I don't think any of the other pure PV implementations have NMI either,
so I don't think it affects them.

> Wouldn't it be nice to be able to remove the need to paravirtualize iret?
>   

Of course.  But we also need to do an iret in a hypercall to handle ring
switching in some cases, so we still need it aside from the interrupt issue.

    J