From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/PV: fix unintended dependency of m2p-strict mode on migration-v2
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:34:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AF88FB.4020202@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56AF95D902000078000CD184@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
On 01/02/16 16:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:07, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 01/02/16 13:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Ping? (I'd really like to get this resolved, so we don't need to
>>> indefinitely run with non-upstream behavior in our distros.)
>> My remaining issue is whether this loop gets executed by default.
>>
>> I realise that there is a difference between legacy and v2 migration,
>> and that v2 migration by default worked. If that means we managed to
>> skip this loop in its entirety for v2, then I am far less concerned
>> about the overhead.
> But had been there before: Of course we could skip the loop if
> the bit in d->vm_assist doesn't change. But as expressed before,
> with you having already indicated that perhaps it would be better
> to have v2 migration do the relevant operations in the other (v1)
> order, the moment that was actually done the benefit of avoiding
> the loop would be gone.
>
> To be clear - if rendering the code dead (which is what you ask
> for) until v2 migration happens to get changed is the only way to
> get this code in, I will submit a v2 with that extra conditional.
Migration v2 currently loads vcpu context before pinning the pagetables,
which means that the vm_assist should get set up properly, before L4
tables are processed.
It was my understanding that this is the correct way around, and
m2p-strict mode only broke when you backported it to migration v1 systems?
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-01 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-12 10:08 [PATCH] x86/PV: fix unintended dependency of m2p-strict mode on migration-v2 Jan Beulich
2016-01-12 11:55 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-01-12 15:19 ` Jan Beulich
2016-01-13 15:25 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-01-13 15:36 ` Jan Beulich
2016-01-13 16:00 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-01-13 16:15 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-01 13:20 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-01 14:07 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-01 16:28 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-01 16:34 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2016-02-01 16:51 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-01 17:31 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-02 10:21 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-02 14:08 ` Jan Beulich
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=56AF88FB.4020202@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).