Xen devel - Jan 2007 - TLB flushing

Looking at the do_mmuext_op(), it looks like we are not handling shadow mode
uniformly :
For instance, for MMUEXT_INVLPG_LOCAL case, we deal with the case where the
domain may be operating under shadow mode; however, for other flush options we
don''t deal with the case where the domain may be operating in shadow
mode. What is the rationale for this?

Regards,

K. Y


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 23/1/07 18:28, "Ky Srinivasan" <ksrinivasan@novell.com>
wrote:
> Looking at the do_mmuext_op(), it looks like we are not handling shadow
mode
> uniformly :
> For instance, for MMUEXT_INVLPG_LOCAL case, we deal with the case where the
> domain may be operating under shadow mode; however, for other flush options
we
> don''t deal with the case where the domain may be operating in
shadow mode.
> What is the rationale for this?
Most (or perhaps even all) of the references to shadow mode in arch/x86/mm.c
are to handle PV guests running in shadow_mode_translate and/or
shadow_mode_refcounts. Those modes were never really a well-integrated or
-tested configuration for PV guests and are now deprecated (e.g., reference
to shadow mode in MMUEXT_INVLPG_LOCAL will be removed sometime soon). Really
most of arch/x86/mm.c needs to be renamed to arch/x86/mm/pv.c...

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel