Re: [QUERY] lguest64

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

> >>>          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.

Would you have a by any chance a nice test-case to demonstrate the
rdmsr/wrmsr paths which performance-critical under baremetal?
> 
> Similarly, beyond pvops, what new assumptions does this code add to the
> code base?

We have not yet narrowed down on how to "negotiate" the GDT values - as
the VMX code in the hypervisor has setup those before it loads the kernel.
I think Mukesh was thinking to extend the .Xen.note to enumerate some of the
ones that are needed and somehow the hypervisor slurps them in.

--
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/