lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [QUERY] lguest64
> >>>          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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-05 21:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site