* Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT?
@ 2006-12-12 1:22 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-12-12 1:42 ` Zachary Amsden
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2006-12-12 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Virtualization Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List
Hi Andi,
What problem do they cause together? There's certainly no problem with
Xen+vdso (in fact, its actually very useful so that it picks up the
right libc with Xen-friendly TLS).
J
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT?
2006-12-12 1:22 Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT? Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2006-12-12 1:42 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-12-12 1:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Zachary Amsden @ 2006-12-12 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Andi Kleen, Virtualization Mailing List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> What problem do they cause together? There's certainly no problem with
> Xen+vdso (in fact, its actually very useful so that it picks up the
> right libc with Xen-friendly TLS).
>
Methinks the compat VDSO support got broken in the config? Paravirt +
COMPAT_VDSO are incompatible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT?
2006-12-12 1:42 ` Zachary Amsden
@ 2006-12-12 1:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-12-12 1:46 ` Zachary Amsden
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2006-12-12 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zachary Amsden
Cc: Andi Kleen, Virtualization Mailing List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Hi Andi,
>>
>> What problem do they cause together? There's certainly no problem with
>> Xen+vdso (in fact, its actually very useful so that it picks up the
>> right libc with Xen-friendly TLS).
>>
>
> Methinks the compat VDSO support got broken in the config? Paravirt +
> COMPAT_VDSO are incompatible.
Yes, that's true, but I'm looking at arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c:
#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 0;
#else
unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 1;
#endif
I can't think of any reason why that should be necessary.
J
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT?
2006-12-12 1:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2006-12-12 1:46 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-12-12 1:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Zachary Amsden @ 2006-12-12 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Andi Kleen, Virtualization Mailing List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Rusty Russell
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andi,
>>>
>>> What problem do they cause together? There's certainly no problem with
>>> Xen+vdso (in fact, its actually very useful so that it picks up the
>>> right libc with Xen-friendly TLS).
>>>
>>>
>> Methinks the compat VDSO support got broken in the config? Paravirt +
>> COMPAT_VDSO are incompatible.
>>
>
> Yes, that's true, but I'm looking at arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 0;
> #else
> unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 1;
> #endif
>
> I can't think of any reason why that should be necessary.
>
It's not for us or Xen. Perhaps it came from lhype?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-12 1:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-12-12 1:22 Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT? Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-12-12 1:42 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-12-12 1:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-12-12 1:46 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-12-12 1:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox