Re: [QUERY] lguest64

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 08/05/2013 09:50 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me iterate down what the experimental patch uses:
>>>
>>>          struct pv_init_ops pv_init_ops;                                         
>>> 		[still use xen_patch, but I think that is not needed anymore]
>>>
>>>          struct pv_time_ops pv_time_ops;                                         
>>> 		[we need that as we are using the PV clock source]
>>>
>>>          struct pv_cpu_ops pv_cpu_ops;                                           
>>> 		[only end up using cpuid. This one is a tricky one. We could
>>> 		 arguable remove it but it does do some filtering - for example
>>> 	 	 THERM is turned off, or MWAIT if a certain hypercall tells us to
>>> 		 disable that. Since this is now a trapped operation this could be
>>> 		 handled in the hypervisor - but then it would be in charge of
>>> 		 filtering certain CPUID - and this is at bootup - so there is not
>>> 		 user interaction. This needs a bit more of thinking]
>>>
>> read_msr/write_msr in this one make all msr accesses safe. IIRC there
>> are MSRs that Linux uses without checking cpuid bits.
>> IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES for instance is used without checking PDCM bit.
> 
> Right, those are needed as well. Completly forgot about them.

CPUID is not too bad.  RDMSR/WRMSR is actually worse since there are
some MSRs which are performance-critical.  The really messy pvops are
the memory-related ones, as they don't match the hardware behavior.

Similarly, beyond pvops, what new assumptions does this code add to the
code base?

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/