similar to: [PATCH 5/6] i386 virtualization - Make generic set wrprotect a macro

The macro set_wrprotect() should not be defined to have a value. Make it a do {} while(0) instead of ({}). Noticed by Chris Wright. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Patch-subject: Make set_wrprotect() value safe Index: linux-2.6.13/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h =================================================================== ---

The macro set_wrprotect() should not be defined to have a value. Make it a do {} while(0) instead of ({}). Noticed by Chris Wright. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Patch-subject: Make set_wrprotect() value safe Index: linux-2.6.13/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h =================================================================== ---

Change pte_clear_full to a more appropriately named pte_clear_not_present, allowing optimizations when not-present mapping changes need not be reflected in the hardware TLB for protected page table modes. There is also another case that can use it in the fremap code. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com> ---

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

We don't want to read PTEs directly like this after they have been modified, as a lazy MMU implementation of direct page tables may not have written the updated PTE back to memory yet. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org --- mm/memory.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1

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

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

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

[ REPOST: Apologies to anyone who has seen this before. It didn't make it onto any of the lists it should have. -J ] Hi Andrew, This series of patches lays the basic ground work for the paravirtualized kernel patches coming later on. I think this lot is ready for the rough-and-tumble world of the -mm tree. For the most part, these patches do nothing or very little. The patches should

[ REPOST: Apologies to anyone who has seen this before. It didn't make it onto any of the lists it should have. -J ] Hi Andrew, This series of patches lays the basic ground work for the paravirtualized kernel patches coming later on. I think this lot is ready for the rough-and-tumble world of the -mm tree. For the most part, these patches do nothing or very little. The patches should

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

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Below is the list of build error/warning regressions/improvements in > v5.7-rc1[1] compared to v5.6[2]. > > Summarized: > - build errors: +132/-3 > - build warnings: +257/-79 > > Happy fixing! ;-) > > Thanks to the linux-next team for providing the build service. > > [1]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Below is the list of build error/warning regressions/improvements in > v5.7-rc1[1] compared to v5.6[2]. > > Summarized: > - build errors: +132/-3 > - build warnings: +257/-79 > > Happy fixing! ;-) > > Thanks to the linux-next team for providing the build service. > > [1]

Implement lazy MMU update hooks which are SMP safe for both direct and shadow page tables. The idea is that PTE updates and page invalidations while in lazy mode can be batched into a single hypercall. We use this in VMI for shadow page table synchronization, and it is a win. It also can be used by PPC and for direct page tables on Xen. For SMP, the enter / leave must happen under protection

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet