* [RFC v4 0/2] x86/xen: add xen hypercall preemption
@ 2015-01-23 0:29 Luis R. Rodriguez
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2015-01-23 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david.vrabel, konrad.wilk, boris.ostrovsky, xen-devel
Cc: kvm, Luis R. Rodriguez, x86, linux-kernel, rostedt, paulmck
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
This v4 addresses some of the cleanups recommended and adds
tracing option for when we do actually preempt a hypercall.
I kept the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() for now but did remove the 'notrace'
stuff.
This goes out as RFC still as I have not been able to test 32-bit.
Can anyone test that or at least confirm that the 32-bit point
we do the upcall is definitely not on the IRQ stack?
Luis R. Rodriguez (2):
x86/xen: add xen_is_preemptible_hypercall()
x86/xen: allow privcmd hypercalls to be preempted
arch/arm/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h | 5 +++++
arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S | 2 ++
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 ++
arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 7 +++++++
arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
drivers/xen/events/events_base.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
include/trace/events/xen.h | 9 +++++++++
include/xen/events.h | 1 +
9 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.1.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC v4 0/2] x86/xen: add xen hypercall preemption
2015-01-23 11:51 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
@ 2015-01-23 18:58 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2015-01-23 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Vrabel
Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez, kvm, x86, linux-kernel, rostedt, xen-devel,
boris.ostrovsky, paulmck
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:51:09AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 23/01/15 00:29, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
> >
> > This v4 addresses some of the cleanups recommended and adds
> > tracing option for when we do actually preempt a hypercall.
> > I kept the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() for now but did remove the 'notrace'
> > stuff.
> >
> > This goes out as RFC still as I have not been able to test 32-bit.
> > Can anyone test that or at least confirm that the 32-bit point
> > we do the upcall is definitely not on the IRQ stack?
>
> You can omit fixing this for 32-bit guests (provided you note as such in
> the commit message).
I'll be happy to do that.
Luis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC v4 0/2] x86/xen: add xen hypercall preemption
2015-01-23 0:29 Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-01-23 11:51 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
@ 2015-01-23 11:51 ` David Vrabel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Vrabel @ 2015-01-23 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis R. Rodriguez, david.vrabel, konrad.wilk, boris.ostrovsky, xen-devel
Cc: kvm, Luis R. Rodriguez, x86, linux-kernel, rostedt, paulmck
On 23/01/15 00:29, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
>
> This v4 addresses some of the cleanups recommended and adds
> tracing option for when we do actually preempt a hypercall.
> I kept the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() for now but did remove the 'notrace'
> stuff.
>
> This goes out as RFC still as I have not been able to test 32-bit.
> Can anyone test that or at least confirm that the 32-bit point
> we do the upcall is definitely not on the IRQ stack?
You can omit fixing this for 32-bit guests (provided you note as such in
the commit message).
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [RFC v4 0/2] x86/xen: add xen hypercall preemption
@ 2015-01-23 0:29 Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-01-23 11:51 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2015-01-23 11:51 ` David Vrabel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2015-01-23 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david.vrabel, konrad.wilk, boris.ostrovsky, xen-devel
Cc: linux-kernel, x86, kvm, paulmck, rostedt, Luis R. Rodriguez
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
This v4 addresses some of the cleanups recommended and adds
tracing option for when we do actually preempt a hypercall.
I kept the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() for now but did remove the 'notrace'
stuff.
This goes out as RFC still as I have not been able to test 32-bit.
Can anyone test that or at least confirm that the 32-bit point
we do the upcall is definitely not on the IRQ stack?
Luis R. Rodriguez (2):
x86/xen: add xen_is_preemptible_hypercall()
x86/xen: allow privcmd hypercalls to be preempted
arch/arm/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h | 5 +++++
arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S | 2 ++
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 ++
arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 7 +++++++
arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
drivers/xen/events/events_base.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
include/trace/events/xen.h | 9 +++++++++
include/xen/events.h | 1 +
9 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.1.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-23 18:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-01-23 0:29 [RFC v4 0/2] x86/xen: add xen hypercall preemption Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-01-23 0:29 Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-01-23 11:51 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2015-01-23 18:58 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-01-23 11:51 ` David Vrabel
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.