xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Support of non-indirect grant backend on 64KB guest
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:31:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D5906C.7070907@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1508200034250.2672@kaball.uk.xensource.com>

El 20/08/15 a les 1.44, Stefano Stabellini ha escrit:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> My opinion is that we have already merged quite a lot of this mess in
>> order to support guests with different page sizes. And in this case, the
>> addition of code can be done to a userspace component, which is much
>> less risky than adding it to blkfront, also taking into account that
>> it's a general improvement for Qdisk that other arches can also leverage.
>>
>> So in one hand you are adding code to a kernel component, that makes the
>> code much more messy and can only be leveraged by ARM. On the other
>> hand, you can add code a user-space backend, and that code is also
>> beneficial for other arches. IMHO, the decision is quite clear.
> 
> 64K pages not working is entirely a Linux problem, not a Xen problem.
> Xen uses 4K pages as usual and exports the same 4K based hypercall
> interface as usual. That needs to work, no matter what the guest decides
> to put in its own pagetables.
> 
> I remind everybody that Xen interfaces on ARM and ARM64 are fully
> maintained for backward compatibility. Xen is not forcing Linux to use
> 64K pages, that's entirely a Linux decision. The issue has nothing to do
> with Xen.
> 
> The bug here is that Linux has broken 64K pages support and that should
> be fixed. I don't think is reasonable to make changes to the Xen ABIs
> just to accommodate the brokenness of one guest kernel in a particular
> configuration.

Is it a change to the ABI to mandate indirect-descriptors support in
order to run arm64 with 64KB guests?

IMHO, it is not, and none of the proposed solutions (either change
blkfront or Qdisk) include any change to the Xen ABI. In this case my
preference would be to perform the change in the backend for the reasons
detailed above.

Anyway, I'm not going to block such a change, I just think there are
technically better ways to solve this issue.

Roger.


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

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-20  8:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-18  6:29 [RFC] Support of non-indirect grant backend on 64KB guest Julien Grall
2015-08-18  7:09 ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-08-18  7:26   ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-18 18:45   ` Julien Grall
2015-08-19  8:50     ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-08-19 14:54       ` Julien Grall
2015-08-19 15:17         ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-08-19 15:52           ` Julien Grall
2015-08-19 23:44           ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-08-20  8:31             ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2015-08-20  9:43               ` David Vrabel
2015-08-20 16:16                 ` Julien Grall
2015-08-20 17:23                 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-08-21 16:05                   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-08-21 16:08                     ` David Vrabel
2015-08-21 16:49                       ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-08-21 17:10                       ` PAGE_SIZE (64KB), while block driver 'struct request' deals with < PAGE_SIZE (up to 44Kb). Was:Re: " Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-08-27 17:51                         ` Julien Grall
2015-09-04 14:04                           ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-04 15:41                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-09-04 16:15                               ` Julien Grall
2015-09-04 17:32                                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-09-04 22:05                                   ` Julien Grall
2015-08-20  9:37             ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-19  8:58     ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-19 15:25       ` Julien Grall
2015-08-20 17:42 ` David Vrabel
2015-08-21  1:30   ` Julien Grall
2015-08-21 16:07     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=55D5906C.7070907@citrix.com \
    --to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=julien.grall@citrix.com \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).