search for: pgd_list

Btw., another question that made me wonder already when doing the original patch: why is it that x86-64 properly uses locking for mm_pin_all(), yet i386 doesn''t need to? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...struct nouveau_vm *vm, struct nouveau_gpuobj *pgd) nouveau_gpuobj_ref(pgd, &vpgd->obj); - mutex_lock(&nv_subdev(vmm)->mutex); for (i = vm->fpde; i <= vm->lpde; i++) vmm->map_pgt(pgd, i, vm->pgt[i - vm->fpde].obj); list_add(&vpgd->head, &vm->pgd_list); - mutex_unlock(&nv_subdev(vmm)->mutex); return 0; } static void nouveau_vm_unlink(struct nouveau_vm *vm, struct nouveau_gpuobj *mpgd) { - struct nouveau_vmmgr *vmm = vm->vmm; struct nouveau_vm_pgd *vpgd, *tmp; struct nouveau_gpuobj *pgd = NULL; if (!mpgd) return; -...

...it(&linfo->page_lock); + + /* FIXME: protect the guest_id counter */ + linfo->guest_id = ++next_guest_id; + + linfo->pfn_limit = args[0]; + linfo->page_offset = args[3]; + linfo->start_kernel_map = args[3]; + + mutex_init(&linfo->page_lock); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pgd_list); + + for (i=0; i < PUD_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pud_hash[i]); + + for (i=0; i < PMD_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pmd_hash[i]); + + for (i=0; i < PTE_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pte_hash[i]); + + err = init_guest_pagetable(li...

...it(&linfo->page_lock); + + /* FIXME: protect the guest_id counter */ + linfo->guest_id = ++next_guest_id; + + linfo->pfn_limit = args[0]; + linfo->page_offset = args[3]; + linfo->start_kernel_map = args[3]; + + mutex_init(&linfo->page_lock); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pgd_list); + + for (i=0; i < PUD_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pud_hash[i]); + + for (i=0; i < PMD_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pmd_hash[i]); + + for (i=0; i < PTE_HASH_SIZE; i++) + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&linfo->pte_hash[i]); + + err = init_guest_pagetable(li...

Is there any real use in having a ctor/dtor for the pgd cache? Given that all pgd allocation happens via pgd_alloc/pgd_free, why not just fold the [cd]tor in? I'm asking because Xen wants pgd[3] to be unshared in the PAE case, and it looks to me like the easiest way to handle that is by making pgd_alloc/free pv-ops and doing the appropriate thing in the Xen code. Would need to sort out the

Is there any real use in having a ctor/dtor for the pgd cache? Given that all pgd allocation happens via pgd_alloc/pgd_free, why not just fold the [cd]tor in? I'm asking because Xen wants pgd[3] to be unshared in the PAE case, and it looks to me like the easiest way to handle that is by making pgd_alloc/free pv-ops and doing the appropriate thing in the Xen code. Would need to sort out the

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the possibilities pv-ops delivers though. On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not touching any MMU code. That way we don't have to improve pv-ops to become fast, we just don't compile the MMU parts in! This

Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the possibilities pv-ops delivers though. On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not touching any MMU code. That way we don't have to improve pv-ops to become fast, we just don't compile the MMU parts in! This

Hi Andi, This series of patches updates paravirt_ops in various ways. Some of the changes are plain cleanups and improvements, and some add some interfaces necessary for Xen. The brief overview: add-MAINTAINERS.patch - obvious remove-CONFIG_DEBUG_PARAVIRT.patch - no longer needed paravirt-nop.patch - mark nop operations consistently paravirt-pte-accessors.patch - operations to pack/unpack

Hi Andi, This series of patches updates paravirt_ops in various ways. Some of the changes are plain cleanups and improvements, and some add some interfaces necessary for Xen. The brief overview: add-MAINTAINERS.patch - obvious remove-CONFIG_DEBUG_PARAVIRT.patch - no longer needed paravirt-nop.patch - mark nop operations consistently paravirt-pte-accessors.patch - operations to pack/unpack

Hi Andi, Here's a repost of the paravirt_ops update series I posted the other day. Since then, I found a few potential bugs with patching clobbering, cleaned up and documented paravirt.h and the patching machinery. Overview: add-MAINTAINERS.patch obvious remove-CONFIG_DEBUG_PARAVIRT.patch No longer meaningful or needed. paravirt-nop.patch Clean up nop paravirt_ops functions, mainly to

Hi Andi, Here's a repost of the paravirt_ops update series I posted the other day. Since then, I found a few potential bugs with patching clobbering, cleaned up and documented paravirt.h and the patching machinery. Overview: add-MAINTAINERS.patch obvious remove-CONFIG_DEBUG_PARAVIRT.patch No longer meaningful or needed. paravirt-nop.patch Clean up nop paravirt_ops functions, mainly to

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

Hi Andi, This patch series implements the Linux Xen guest as a paravirt_ops backend. The features in implemented this patch series are: * domU only * UP only (most code is SMP-safe, but there's no way to create a new vcpu) * writable pagetables, with late pinning/early unpinning (no shadow pagetable support) * supports both PAE and non-PAE modes * xen hvc console (console=hvc0) *

Hi Andi, This patch series implements the Linux Xen guest as a paravirt_ops backend. The features in implemented this patch series are: * domU only * UP only (most code is SMP-safe, but there's no way to create a new vcpu) * writable pagetables, with late pinning/early unpinning (no shadow pagetable support) * supports both PAE and non-PAE modes * xen hvc console (console=hvc0) *