Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-09 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:23:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > mine are mostly technical arguments. I just also wanted to vent away > this slowly gathering false notion of building 'interoperability', while > the only apparent goal seems to be to maximize benefits to the closed > hypervisors, wh

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-09 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Furthermore, why should we hamper Xen by going to _any_ sort of > > "formalized" hypervisor API, when we dont even know what we want, as Xen > > is pretty much work in progress? And whatever Xen support is exported > > from the kernel, it should b

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Chris Wright
* Zachary Amsden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Doesn't that require 16 pages per CPU? That seems excessive to impose > on a native build. Perhaps we could get away with 1 page per CPU for > the GDT on native boots and bump that up to 16 if compiling for a > virtualized sub-architecture - i.e. m

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Martin J. Bligh
> I like these patches. They greatly simplify a lot of the work I > had anticipated was necessary for Xen. I.e. - LDT / GDT accessors > are not needed for most updates, only updates to live descriptor > table entries (for GDT this is TLS, LDT, TSS?, entries and there > is 1 LDT update case).

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Zachary Amsden
Chris Wright wrote: * Zachary Amsden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Chris Wright
* Zachary Amsden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 in

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Zachary Amsden
Chris Wright wrote: * Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: xen_make_pages_readonly / xen_make_pages_writable ? Well we don't want to assume "xen" at this stage. We're faced with a choice at present: to make the linux->hypervisor

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Martin J. Bligh
--Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Sunday, August 07, 2005 17:41:29 -0700): > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> --Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Sunday, August 07, 2005 >> 16:44:11 -0700): >> >> > * Martin J. Bligh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> >

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Chris Wright
* Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > xen_make_pages_readonly / xen_make_pages_writable ? > > Well we don't want to assume "xen" at this stage. We're faced with a > choice at present: to make the linux->hypervisor interface be some > xen-spe

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Andrew Morton
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Sunday, August 07, 2005 16:44:11 > -0700): > > > * Martin J. Bligh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> Starting on the work to merge xen cleanly as a subarch. > >> Introduce make_pages_readonly and mak

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Dave Hansen
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 16:20 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Starting on the work to merge xen cleanly as a subarch. > Introduce make_pages_readonly and make_pages_writable where appropriate > for Xen, defined as a no-op on other subarches. Same for > add_context_to_unpinned and del_context_from_

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Chris Wright
* Martin J. Bligh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > You're welcome to suggest something else if you want, though it would > have been easier if you'd done it the first time you saw this patch, > not now. Going through this stuff multiple times is going to get very > boring very fast. Sorry, that's my f

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Martin J. Bligh
--Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Sunday, August 07, 2005 16:44:11 -0700): > * Martin J. Bligh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Starting on the work to merge xen cleanly as a subarch. >> Introduce make_pages_readonly and make_pages_writable where appropriate >> for Xen, defined as a no

Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Chris Wright
* Martin J. Bligh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Starting on the work to merge xen cleanly as a subarch. > Introduce make_pages_readonly and make_pages_writable where appropriate > for Xen, defined as a no-op on other subarches. Same for Maybe this is a bad name, since make_pages_readonly/writable

[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

2005-08-07 Thread Martin J. Bligh
Starting on the work to merge xen cleanly as a subarch. Introduce make_pages_readonly and make_pages_writable where appropriate for Xen, defined as a no-op on other subarches. Same for add_context_to_unpinned and del_context_from_unpinned. Abstract out install_ldt_entry(). This will do have no e