Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part"
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it
2020 Aug 15
6
[PATCH v4 0/6] x86/paravirt: cleanup after 32-bit PV removal
A lot of cleanup after removal of 32-bit Xen PV guest support in
paravirt code.
Changes in V4:
- dropped patches 1-3, as already committed
- addressed comments to V3
- added new patches 5+6
Changes in V3:
- addressed comments to V2
- split patch 1 into 2 patches
- new patches 3 and 7
Changes in V2:
- rebase to 5.8 kernel
- addressed comments to V1
- new patches 3 and 4
Juergen Gross (6):
2020 Aug 07
4
[PATCH v3 0/7] Remove 32-bit Xen PV guest support
The long term plan has been to replace Xen PV guests by PVH. The first
victim of that plan are now 32-bit PV guests, as those are used only
rather seldom these days. Xen on x86 requires 64-bit support and with
Grub2 now supporting PVH officially since version 2.04 there is no
need to keep 32-bit PV guest support alive in the Linux kernel.
Additionally Meltdown mitigation is not available in the
2019 Jul 15
5
[PATCH 0/2] Remove 32-bit Xen PV guest support
The long term plan has been to replace Xen PV guests by PVH. The first
victim of that plan are now 32-bit PV guests, as those are used only
rather seldom these days. Xen on x86 requires 64-bit support and with
Grub2 now supporting PVH officially since version 2.04 there is no
need to keep 32-bit PV guest support alive in the Linux kernel.
Additionally Meltdown mitigation is not available in the
2019 Jul 15
5
[PATCH 0/2] Remove 32-bit Xen PV guest support
The long term plan has been to replace Xen PV guests by PVH. The first
victim of that plan are now 32-bit PV guests, as those are used only
rather seldom these days. Xen on x86 requires 64-bit support and with
Grub2 now supporting PVH officially since version 2.04 there is no
need to keep 32-bit PV guest support alive in the Linux kernel.
Additionally Meltdown mitigation is not available in the
2020 Jul 01
5
[PATCH v2 0/4] Remove 32-bit Xen PV guest support
The long term plan has been to replace Xen PV guests by PVH. The first
victim of that plan are now 32-bit PV guests, as those are used only
rather seldom these days. Xen on x86 requires 64-bit support and with
Grub2 now supporting PVH officially since version 2.04 there is no
need to keep 32-bit PV guest support alive in the Linux kernel.
Additionally Meltdown mitigation is not available in the
2020 Jul 01
5
[PATCH v2 0/4] Remove 32-bit Xen PV guest support
The long term plan has been to replace Xen PV guests by PVH. The first
victim of that plan are now 32-bit PV guests, as those are used only
rather seldom these days. Xen on x86 requires 64-bit support and with
Grub2 now supporting PVH officially since version 2.04 there is no
need to keep 32-bit PV guest support alive in the Linux kernel.
Additionally Meltdown mitigation is not available in the
2017 May 19
13
[PATCH 00/10] paravirt: make amount of paravirtualization configurable
Today paravirtualization is a all-or-nothing game: either a kernel is
compiled with no paravirtualization support at all, or it is supporting
paravirtualized environments like Xen pv-guests or lguest additionally
to some paravirtualized tuning for KVM, Hyperv, VMWare or Xen
HVM-guests.
As support of pv-guests requires quite intrusive pv-hooks (e.g. all
access functions to page table entries,
2017 May 19
13
[PATCH 00/10] paravirt: make amount of paravirtualization configurable
Today paravirtualization is a all-or-nothing game: either a kernel is
compiled with no paravirtualization support at all, or it is supporting
paravirtualized environments like Xen pv-guests or lguest additionally
to some paravirtualized tuning for KVM, Hyperv, VMWare or Xen
HVM-guests.
As support of pv-guests requires quite intrusive pv-hooks (e.g. all
access functions to page table entries,
2007 Apr 18
17
[patch 00/17] paravirt_ops updates
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
2007 Apr 18
17
[patch 00/17] paravirt_ops updates
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
2007 Apr 18
23
[patch 00/20] paravirt_ops updates
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
2007 Apr 18
23
[patch 00/20] paravirt_ops updates
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
2018 Aug 13
11
[PATCH v2 00/11] x86/paravirt: several cleanups
This series removes some no longer needed stuff from paravirt
infrastructure and puts large quantities of paravirt ops under a new
config option PARAVIRT_XXL which is selected by XEN_PV only.
A pvops kernel without XEN_PV being configured is about 2.5% smaller
with this series applied.
tip commit 5800dc5c19f34e6e03b5adab1282535cb102fafd ("x86/paravirt:
Fix spectre-v2 mitigations for
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments