Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][v9 4/6] xen/hvm: Xen PV extension of HVM initialization

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 03/15/2010 06:51 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 March 2010 06:59:58 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>    
>> On 03/15/2010 05:04 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>      
>>>> But we should make sure Xen have ability to support such kind of
>>>> operation. The CPUID would show if Xen have such ability, and if it
>>>> does, the feature would be enabled unconditionally. Guest kernel always
>>>> enable all features it can do unconditionally, but Xen should offer the
>>>> support for them.
>>>>          
>>> In my opinion once the guest knows that is running on Xen HVM (that is
>>> from xen_cpuid_base() or xen_para_available()) it should assume
>>> that the pv clocksource is available, therefore XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED
>>> should not be needed.
>>> In other words the mere presence of Xen should imply
>>> XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED.
>>>        
>> The only reason why we wouldn't want to do this is if we want to
>> withdraw this feature at some point in the future.  We're stuck with it
>> indefinitely for PV, but I don't know if that's necessarily going to be
>> the case for HVM.  On the other hand, if other - better - mechanisms
>> become available, we can give them their own clocksource driver with a
>> higher priority than the Xen pvclock one, and users can still select
>> clocksources on the kernel command line.
>>      
> So you think about adding a new XENFEAT?
>    

I think that's a bit arbitrary.  If we need a new vcpuop to make it work 
properly anyway (set tsc offset), then the presence of that should be a 
good indicator.  In other words, make it depend on its actual fixed 
pre-reqs, rather than a specific flag for the feature.

>> Seems like making it work for both 32 and 64-bit is the easiest thing to
>>   do.
>>      
> If it is, it should be fine. But I had encountered some issues on 32 bits.
>    

What kinds of issues?

     J