From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 4/5] xen,
 libxc: Request page fault injection via libxc
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:09:06 +0300
Message-ID: <54100722.1090604@bitdefender.com>
References: <53FF36A1020000780002EAED@mail.emea.novell.com>	<53FF1BD8.5010401@bitdefender.com>	<53FF38A6020000780002EB2B@mail.emea.novell.com>	<54002F43.4070802@bitdefender.com>	<5400638A020000780002EFD6@mail.emea.novell.com>	<540421E1.9020505@bitdefender.com>	<540453C8020000780002F59C@mail.emea.novell.com>	<54045E7C.50604@bitdefender.com>	<54047D1D020000780002F73A@mail.emea.novell.com>	<54058B4E.9060001@bitdefender.com>	<20140902132434.GA24202@deinos.phlegethon.org>	<CAFLBxZZgxHW-fVw4pro6Kv8K5DAaBj6t7ubxEEdD1sRzSsXvtA@mail.gmail.com>	<540F3B46.1030602@bitdefender.com>
	<CAErYnsjaLrvNrhHZVdLACtXywqae-=X2_TkwvK7h5cFj64a71g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>) id 1XRcxw-0001kR-4v
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:09:24 +0000
Received: from smtp03.buh.bitdefender.org (smtp.bitdefender.biz [10.17.80.77])
	by mx-sr.buh.bitdefender.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C02680087
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:09:12 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To: <CAErYnsjaLrvNrhHZVdLACtXywqae-=X2_TkwvK7h5cFj64a71g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <dunlapg@umich.edu>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/09/2014 09:38 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> 
>     > But ultimately, as Tim said, you're basically just *hoping* that it
>     > won't take too long to happen to be at the hypervisor when the proper
>     > condition happens.  If the process in question isn't getting many
>     > interrupts, or is spending the vast majority of its time in the
>     > kernel, you may end up waiting an unbounded amount of time to be able
>     > to "catch" it in user mode.  It seems like it would be better to find
>     > a reliable way to trap on the return into user mode, in which case you
>     > wouldn't need to have a special "wait for this complicated event to
>     > happen" call at all, would you?
> 
>     Indeed, but it is assumed that the trap injection request is being made
>     by the caller in the proper context (when it knows that the condition
>     will be true sooner rather than later).
> 
> 
> How is it known that the condition will be true soon? Some more
> information on what you consider 'proper context' would be valuable.

It's actually pretty simple for us: the application always requests an
injection when the guest is already in the address space of the
interesting application, and in user mode.


Razvan Cojocaru