similar to: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: add pte_flags to just get pte flags

The last 32-bit user of stuff under CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL is gone. Remove 32-bit specific parts. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> --- arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/vclock_gettime.c | 1 + arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 92 +++------------------ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 21 ----- arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-3level_types.h | 5 --

The last 32-bit user of stuff under CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL is gone. Remove 32-bit specific parts. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> --- arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/vclock_gettime.c | 1 + arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 120 ++------------------ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 21 ---- arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-3level_types.h | 5 -

plain text document attachment (xx-paravirt-mm.patch) Memory management for paravirt_ops. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt srostedt@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Index: clean-start/arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c =================================================================== --- clean-start.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c +++

plain text document attachment (xx-paravirt-mm.patch) Memory management for paravirt_ops. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt srostedt@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Index: clean-start/arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c =================================================================== --- clean-start.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c +++

Here's a first attempt at splitting up paravirt_ops into more specific chunks. Its pretty clunky and chunky; mostly just a lot of replacement. The grouping of ops is very first cut; I'm open to suggestions about what groups should exist and what ops they each should contain. The only slightly subtle part is that I've kept the structures wrapped in a paravirt_ops structure,

Here's a first attempt at splitting up paravirt_ops into more specific chunks. Its pretty clunky and chunky; mostly just a lot of replacement. The grouping of ops is very first cut; I'm open to suggestions about what groups should exist and what ops they each should contain. The only slightly subtle part is that I've kept the structures wrapped in a paravirt_ops structure,

The issue at hand is that any prolonged usage of radeon or nouveau driver ends up corrupting the file system or we end up with mysterious crashes of applications. There are three ways of fixing it: a). A proper fix: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/228 . I posted the same fix for 3.2 way back in December but it got nowhere. The recent posting has also been meet with silence. Not being happy

On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: > @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val) > { > pteval_t ret; > > - if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long)) > - ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >> 32); > - else > - ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val); > + ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val); >

On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: > @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val) > { > pteval_t ret; > > - if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long)) > - ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >> 32); > - else > - ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val); > + ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val); >

On 8/10/20 12:39 AM, J?rgen Gro? wrote: > On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val) >>> ? { >>> ????? pteval_t ret; >>> ? -??? if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long)) >>> -??????? ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val

On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val) >> { >> pteval_t ret; >> >> - if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long)) >> - ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >> 32); >> - else >> - ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t,

[ I think this is a straight repost this patch, which addresses all the previous comments. I'd like to submit this for .24 as the basis for a unified paravirt_ops. Any objections? ] This patch refactors the paravirt_ops structure into groups of functionally related ops: pv_info - random info, rather than function entrypoints pv_init_ops - functions used at boot time (some for module_init

[ I think this is a straight repost this patch, which addresses all the previous comments. I'd like to submit this for .24 as the basis for a unified paravirt_ops. Any objections? ] This patch refactors the paravirt_ops structure into groups of functionally related ops: pv_info - random info, rather than function entrypoints pv_init_ops - functions used at boot time (some for module_init

This patch refactors the paravirt_ops structure into groups of functionally related ops: pv_info - random info, rather than function entrypoints pv_init_ops - functions used at boot time (some for module_init too) pv_misc_ops - lazy mode, which didn't fit well anywhere else pv_time_ops - time-related functions pv_cpu_ops - various privileged instruction ops pv_irq_ops - operations for

This patch refactors the paravirt_ops structure into groups of functionally related ops: pv_info - random info, rather than function entrypoints pv_init_ops - functions used at boot time (some for module_init too) pv_misc_ops - lazy mode, which didn't fit well anywhere else pv_time_ops - time-related functions pv_cpu_ops - various privileged instruction ops pv_irq_ops - operations for

Hi all, I've been working on a port of paravirt_ops for the x86_64 architectures for a couple of days. Here's the result so far. I'm posting it soon for early cooments. The more, the better. It's obviously based on the previous work for i386, with the needed modifications. By now, I'm able to boot a bare metal kernel, but there are still some known issues, that are in my TODO

Hi all, I've been working on a port of paravirt_ops for the x86_64 architectures for a couple of days. Here's the result so far. I'm posting it soon for early cooments. The more, the better. It's obviously based on the previous work for i386, with the needed modifications. By now, I'm able to boot a bare metal kernel, but there are still some known issues, that are in my TODO

Hi all, [ Change since last post: change name to ptep_modify_prot_, on the grounds that it isn't really a general pte-modification interface. ] This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native),

Hi all, [ Change since last post: change name to ptep_modify_prot_, on the grounds that it isn't really a general pte-modification interface. ] This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native),

Hi all, [ Change since last post: change name to ptep_modify_prot_, on the grounds that it isn't really a general pte-modification interface. ] This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native),