similar to: [PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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):

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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,

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

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

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