On 04/24/2015 03:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.04.15 at 08:32, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 03:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 09:23, wrote:
I see. I will do as you suggested:
ASSERT((v == current) || (!vcpu_runnable(v) && !v->is_running));
And v != current should be the only case req
>>> On 24.04.15 at 08:32, wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 03:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.04.15 at 09:23, wrote:
>>> I see. I will do as you suggested:
>>>
>>> ASSERT((v == current) || (!vcpu_runnable(v) && !v->is_running));
>>>
>>> And v != current should be the only case requires the vcpu to be
On 04/17/2015 03:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 09:23, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 02:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 08:51, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrot
Hi,
At 18:08 +0800 on 20 Apr (1429553282), Kai Huang wrote:
> Agreed. So this time for the PML patches, I'll always call both
> mark_dirty and p2m_change_type_one (and ignore return value) for all
> logged GPA.
>
> But I intend not to change current video ram tracking code
> (paging_log_dirty_ran
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 17:29 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429291763), Kai Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/17/2015 04:36 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>> > At 11:32 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429270332), Kai Huang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 04/17/2015 08:10 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>> >>> At 22:57 + o
At 17:29 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429291763), Kai Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 04/17/2015 04:36 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 11:32 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429270332), Kai Huang wrote:
> >>
> >> On 04/17/2015 08:10 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> >>> At 22:57 + on 16 Apr (1429225024), Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>
> > Fro
On 04/17/2015 04:36 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
At 11:32 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429270332), Kai Huang wrote:
On 04/17/2015 08:10 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
At 22:57 + on 16 Apr (1429225024), Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
+if ( !p2m_change_type_one(v->dom
At 11:32 +0800 on 17 Apr (1429270332), Kai Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 04/17/2015 08:10 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 22:57 + on 16 Apr (1429225024), Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
> >>> +if ( !p2m_change_type_one(v->domain, gfn, p2m_ram_logdi
On 04/17/2015 03:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 09:23, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 02:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 08:51, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrot
>>> On 17.04.15 at 09:23, wrote:
>
> On 04/17/2015 02:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.04.15 at 08:51, wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
>>
On 04/17/2015 02:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 08:51, wrote:
On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
+void vmx_vcpu_flush_pml_buffer(struct vcpu *v)
+{
+uint64_t *pml_b
>>> On 17.04.15 at 08:51, wrote:
>
> On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
> +void vmx_vcpu_flush_pml_buffer(struct vcpu *v)
> +{
> +uint64_t *pml_buf;
>>
On 04/17/2015 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
+void vmx_vcpu_flush_pml_buffer(struct vcpu *v)
+{
+uint64_t *pml_buf;
+unsigned long pml_idx;
+
+ASSERT(vmx_vcpu_pml_enabled(v));
+
+
>>> On 17.04.15 at 05:10, wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
>>> +void vmx_vcpu_flush_pml_buffer(struct vcpu *v)
>>> +{
>>> +uint64_t *pml_buf;
>>> +unsigned long pml_idx;
>>> +
>>> +ASSERT(vmx_vcpu_pml_enabled(v));
>>> +
>>> +vm
On 04/17/2015 08:10 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
At 22:57 + on 16 Apr (1429225024), Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
+if ( !p2m_change_type_one(v->domain, gfn, p2m_ram_logdirty,
+p2m_ram_rw) )
+paging_mark_gfn_dirty(v->
On 04/17/2015 06:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:04 PM
This patch adds help functions to enable/disable PML, and flush PML buffer for
single vcpu and particular domain for further use.
Signed-off-by: Kai Huang
---
On 04/16/2015 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
+int vmx_vcpu_enable_pml(struct vcpu *v)
+{
+struct domain *d = v->domain;
+
+if ( vmx_vcpu_pml_enabled(v) )
+return 0;
+
+v->arch.hvm_vmx.pml_pg = d->arch.paging.alloc_page(d);
So you latch v->domain
At 22:57 + on 16 Apr (1429225024), Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
> > +if ( !p2m_change_type_one(v->domain, gfn, p2m_ram_logdirty,
> > +p2m_ram_rw) )
> > +paging_mark_gfn_dirty(v->domain, gfn);
>
> Should we ha
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:57 AM
> > +int vmx_domain_enable_pml(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > +struct vcpu *v;
> > +int rc;
> > +
> > +ASSERT(atomic_read(&d->pause_count));
> > +
> > +if ( vmx_domain_pml_enabled(d) )
> > +return 0;
> > +
> > +for
> From: Kai Huang [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:04 PM
>
> This patch adds help functions to enable/disable PML, and flush PML buffer for
> single vcpu and particular domain for further use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kai Huang
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>> On 15.04.15 at 09:03, wrote:
> +int vmx_vcpu_enable_pml(struct vcpu *v)
> +{
> +struct domain *d = v->domain;
> +
> +if ( vmx_vcpu_pml_enabled(v) )
> +return 0;
> +
> +v->arch.hvm_vmx.pml_pg = d->arch.paging.alloc_page(d);
So you latch v->domain into d for this invocation,
21 matches
Mail list logo
