On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 09:47:30AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 17.12.18 at 16:42, wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 04:52:00AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 14.12.18 at 12:45, wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:45:21AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 14.12.18 at 11:
>>> On 17.12.18 at 16:42, wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 04:52:00AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.12.18 at 12:45, wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:45:21AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 14.12.18 at 11:03, wrote:
>> >> > I expect the interdomain locking as a result of usi
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 04:52:00AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.12.18 at 12:45, wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:45:21AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 14.12.18 at 11:03, wrote:
> >> > I expect the interdomain locking as a result of using a paging caller
> >> > domain is goin
>>> On 14.12.18 at 12:45, wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:45:21AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.12.18 at 11:03, wrote:
>> > I expect the interdomain locking as a result of using a paging caller
>> > domain is going to be restricted to the p2m lock of the caller domain,
>> > as a resu
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:45:21AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.12.18 at 11:03, wrote:
> > I expect the interdomain locking as a result of using a paging caller
> > domain is going to be restricted to the p2m lock of the caller domain,
> > as a result of the usage of copy to/from helpers.
>>> On 14.12.18 at 11:03, wrote:
> I expect the interdomain locking as a result of using a paging caller
> domain is going to be restricted to the p2m lock of the caller domain,
> as a result of the usage of copy to/from helpers.
>
> Maybe the less intrusive change would be to just allow locking
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 08:53:22AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 13.12.18 at 16:34, wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:52:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 13.12.18 at 15:14, wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:51:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 13.12.18 at 12:
>>> On 13.12.18 at 16:34, wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:52:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 13.12.18 at 15:14, wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:51:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 13.12.18 at 12:39, wrote:
>> >> > Well, Just keeping correct order between each domai
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:52:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 13.12.18 at 15:14, wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:51:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 13.12.18 at 12:39, wrote:
> >> > Well, Just keeping correct order between each domain locks should be
> >> > enough?
> >> >
>>> On 13.12.18 at 15:14, wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:51:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 13.12.18 at 12:39, wrote:
>> > Well, Just keeping correct order between each domain locks should be
>> > enough?
>> >
>> > Ie: exactly the same that Xen currently does but on a per-domain
>>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:51:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 13.12.18 at 12:39, wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:07:14AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 12.12.18 at 15:54, wrote:
> >> > @@ -488,6 +490,16 @@ static int paging_log_dirty_op(struct domain *d,
> >> >
>>> On 13.12.18 at 12:39, wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:07:14AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 12.12.18 at 15:54, wrote:
>> > @@ -488,6 +490,16 @@ static int paging_log_dirty_op(struct domain *d,
>> > bytes = (unsigned int)((sc->pages - pages + 7) >> 3);
>> >
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:07:14AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.12.18 at 15:54, wrote:
> > Fix this by releasing the target paging lock before attempting to
> > perform the copy of the dirty bitmap, and then forcing a restart of
> > the whole process in case there have been changes to the
>>> On 12.12.18 at 15:54, wrote:
> Fix this by releasing the target paging lock before attempting to
> perform the copy of the dirty bitmap, and then forcing a restart of
> the whole process in case there have been changes to the dirty bitmap
> tables.
I'm afraid it's not that simple: The writer
When the caller of paging_log_dirty_op is a paging mode guest Xen
would choke when trying to copy the dirty bitmap to the guest provided
buffer because the paging lock of the target is already locked, and
trying to lock the paging lock of the caller will cause the mm lock
order checks to trigger:
15 matches
Mail list logo