Hi Andrii,
On 3/18/19 1:38 PM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
On 18.03.19 14:25, Julien Grall wrote:
As I already said multiple times before, please try to explain
everything in your first e-mail...
I know. I'm trying to provide enough info in the cover letter. But it
seems I do not succeed.
Putting all the thoughts might lead into overburdened text. But it looks
it should be done. Going to do that next time.
I realize my point is maybe misleading. Overburderned text is indeed not
very great. Missing something in the cover letter is not entirely a big
deal. Then the reviewers can ask question for clarification afterwards.
However, when I pointed out that arm32 was left from the text, you
should have provided more details on why rather than just confirming you
left it. Maybe I should have been clearer in my review and ask a proper
question.
- Smth. similar or different might happen on x86 PV or HVM
Yet, all of them are out of design and are quite unexpected.
We *must* protect hypervisor against any guest behavior.
Totally agree.
Particularly the unexpected one. If the Android VM hit itself, then I
pretty much don't care assuming the VM was misbehaving. However, I
don't think anyone would be happy if the Android VM is able to take
down the whole platform. At least, I would not want to be the
passenger of that car...
Neither do I.
You also saw a performance drop when using glmark2 benchmark.
Yes, I did see it with Roger's patch. But with mine - numbers are
slightly better (~1%) for runstate being mapped. > Also introducing
more races preventing code will introduce its impact.
Please provide the numbers once you fixed the race.
I'm laying my hands on the tracer now. Want to get numbers from it as wel.
Thank you for doing the benchmark.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
