similar to: Is this a typo?

The VMI backend uses explicit page type notification to track shadow page tables. The allocation of page table roots is especially tricky. We want to clone the root for non-PAE mode while it is protected under the pgd lock. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c +++

The VMI backend uses explicit page type notification to track shadow page tables. The allocation of page table roots is especially tricky. We want to clone the root for non-PAE mode while it is protected under the pgd lock. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c +++

The VMI backend uses explicit page type notification to track shadow page tables. The allocation of page table roots is especially tricky. We need to clone the root for non-PAE mode while it is protected under the pgd lock to correctly copy the shadow. We don't need to allocate pgds in PAE mode, (PDPs in Intel terminology) as they only have 4 entries, and are cached entirely by the

The VMI backend uses explicit page type notification to track shadow page tables. The allocation of page table roots is especially tricky. We need to clone the root for non-PAE mode while it is protected under the pgd lock to correctly copy the shadow. We don't need to allocate pgds in PAE mode, (PDPs in Intel terminology) as they only have 4 entries, and are cached entirely by 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

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

Hooks are provided for the mach-XXX subarchitecture at the time prior to a page being used as a page table at all levels, for PAE and non-PAE kernels. Note that in PAE mode, multiple PDP roots may exist on the same page with other data, so the root must be shadowed instead. This is not a performance issue, since PAE only uses 4 top level PDPEs. The hooks are: SetPagePTE(ppn) - indicates that a

Hooks are provided for the mach-XXX subarchitecture at the time prior to a page being used as a page table at all levels, for PAE and non-PAE kernels. Note that in PAE mode, multiple PDP roots may exist on the same page with other data, so the root must be shadowed instead. This is not a performance issue, since PAE only uses 4 top level PDPEs. The hooks are: SetPagePTE(ppn) - indicates that a

MMU code movement. Unfortunately, this one is a little bit more complicated than the rest. We have to override the default accessors that directly write to page table entries. Because of the 2/3-level PAE split in Linux, this turned out to be really ugly at first, but by allowing the sub-arch layer to override the definitions and keeping the native definitions in place, the code becomes much

MMU code movement. Unfortunately, this one is a little bit more complicated than the rest. We have to override the default accessors that directly write to page table entries. Because of the 2/3-level PAE split in Linux, this turned out to be really ugly at first, but by allowing the sub-arch layer to override the definitions and keeping the native definitions in place, the code becomes much

Hi, this version requires that host and guest have the same PAE status. NX cap is not offered to the guest, yet. Thanks, Matias Lguest PAE support Signed-off-by: Matias Zabaljauregui <zabaljauregui at gmail.com> --- Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/lguest.h | 7 +- arch/x86/include/asm/lguest_hcall.h | 3 +- arch/x86/lguest/Kconfig

Hi, this version requires that host and guest have the same PAE status. NX cap is not offered to the guest, yet. Thanks, Matias Lguest PAE support Signed-off-by: Matias Zabaljauregui <zabaljauregui at gmail.com> --- Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt | 1 - arch/x86/include/asm/lguest.h | 7 +- arch/x86/include/asm/lguest_hcall.h | 3 +- arch/x86/lguest/Kconfig

As usual, written and tested on 2.6.25.2 and made apply to the 2.6.18 tree without further testing. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> Index: head-2008-05-08/arch/x86_64/mm/pageattr-xen.c =================================================================== --- head-2008-05-08.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/pageattr-xen.c 2008-05-15 13:44:37.000000000 +0200 +++

If we're building a pte, we can use simple assigment; only use set_pte etc. when we're actually going to use that destination as a PTE. I don't know that we'll ever run under Xen, but it's neater. And use set_pte/set_pmd rather than assuming native_ versions, even though that's probably true for most people. (Includes compile fix by Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh at

If we're building a pte, we can use simple assigment; only use set_pte etc. when we're actually going to use that destination as a PTE. I don't know that we'll ever run under Xen, but it's neater. And use set_pte/set_pmd rather than assuming native_ versions, even though that's probably true for most people. (Includes compile fix by Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh at

Hi, For some days I have been looking for the bug that causes an easily reproducible oops in the guest when I apply my PAE support _draft_ patch (appended at the end of this mail) to lguest. This is the oops: Setting kernel variables...done. Will now mount local filesystems:. Will now activate swapfile swap:done. Cleaning /tmp... [ 84.749676] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer

Hi, For some days I have been looking for the bug that causes an easily reproducible oops in the guest when I apply my PAE support _draft_ patch (appended at the end of this mail) to lguest. This is the oops: Setting kernel variables...done. Will now mount local filesystems:. Will now activate swapfile swap:done. Cleaning /tmp... [ 84.749676] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer

Normal boot path on system with iommu support: swiotlb buffer will be allocated early at first and then try to initialize iommu, if iommu for intel or AMD could setup properly, swiotlb buffer will be freed. The early allocating is with bootmem, and could panic when we try to use kdump with buffer above 4G only, or with memmap to limit mem under 4G. for example: memmap=4095M$1M to remove memory

Normal boot path on system with iommu support: swiotlb buffer will be allocated early at first and then try to initialize iommu, if iommu for intel or AMD could setup properly, swiotlb buffer will be freed. The early allocating is with bootmem, and could panic when we try to use kdump with buffer above 4G only, or with memmap to limit mem under 4G. for example: memmap=4095M$1M to remove memory

I''m sure everyone has seen the drop of VMI patches for Linux at this point, but just in case, the link is included below. I''ve read this version of the VMI spec and have made my way through most of the patches. While I wasn''t really that impressed with the first spec wrt Xen, the second version seems to be much more palatable. Specifically, the code inlining and