>>> On 25.11.14 at 02:47, <yang.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > Tim Deegan wrote on 2014-11-19: >> At 01:29 +0000 on 19 Nov (1416356943), Zhang, Yang Z wrote: >>> Tim Deegan wrote on 2014-11-18: >>>> In this case, the guest is entitled to _expect_ pagefaults on 1GB >>>> mappings if CPUID claims they are not supported. That sounds like >>>> an unlikely thing for the guest to be relying on, but Xen itself >>>> does something similar for the SHOPT_FAST_FAULT_PATH (and now also >>>> for IOMMU entries for the deferred caching attribute updates). >>> >>> Indeed. How about adding the software check (as Andrew mentioned) >>> firstly and leave the hardware problem (Actually, I don't think we >>> can solve it currently). >> >> I don't think we should change the software path unless we can change >> the hardware behaviour too. It's better to be consistent, and it >> saves us some cycles in the pt walker. > > So if we don't need to add the software check, does this mean current patch > is ok?
No - Tim having confirmed that shadow mode doesn't support 1Gb pages, the feature clearly must not be made visible for shadow mode guest. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
