Li, Xin B
2006-Apr-15 19:05 UTC
[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH][RESEND] only BSP can really do clear_all_shadow_status
>On 15 Apr 2006, at 15:54, Li, Xin B wrote: > >> only BSP can really do clear_all_shadow_status. >> This fixes SMP IA32 VMX guest booting on IA32 xen. > >Why can only VCPU0 do this? Is the argument to >clear_all_shadow_status() always current domain? If so that should >probably be asserted, or the argument removed.Both Jun and I think clear_all_shadow_status is overkilled, update_pagetables should have done the cleanup things, so we thought about removing it, but the test shows that removing it breaks windows on PAE xen, and I''m looking at this issue. Actually, this patch should be a right direction, and changeset 9626 has alrealdy changed shadow.c like what this patch does to shadow32.c. For long term, maybe we will move to per vcpu shadow. -Xin> > -- Keir >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2006-Apr-16 14:29 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][RESEND] only BSP can really do clear_all_shadow_status
On 15 Apr 2006, at 20:05, Li, Xin B wrote:>> Why can only VCPU0 do this? Is the argument to >> clear_all_shadow_status() always current domain? If so that should >> probably be asserted, or the argument removed. > > Both Jun and I think clear_all_shadow_status is overkilled, > update_pagetables should have done the cleanup things, so we thought > about removing it, but the test shows that removing it breaks windows > on > PAE xen, and I''m looking at this issue. > > Actually, this patch should be a right direction, and changeset 9626 > has > alrealdy changed shadow.c like what this patch does to shadow32.c.Okay. But weren''t we going to *get rid* of shadow32.c at some point? :-)> For long term, maybe we will move to per vcpu shadow.I wondered about that but wasn''t convinced it''d help with scalability. Fundamentally, if VCPU-A updates a guest pte that is in VCPU-B''s shadow cache, B''s shadowed version has to be modified no later than the next TLB flush on VCPU-B. So there will still be potentially significant synchronisation across shadow caches although maybe some cunningness can avoid bad behaviour in most cases. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel