Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1641719 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-15 16:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
Support of lguest? Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-05-15 16:10 +0200
Re: Support of lguest? Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200
Re: Support of lguest? Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200
| From | Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Support of lguest? |
| Message-ID | <tHoRb-KQ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen HVM-guests, too). As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. If there wouldn't be lguest... So my question: is anybody still using lguest or would like to keep it? If yes, I'd add CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU selected by CONFIG_XEN_PV and CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST. If no, I'd remove lguest support and just use CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU, in case nobody would like me to use CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU even if lguest isn't there any more. Juergen
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tHpay-Ra-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1641719 |
On 15/05/17 16:22, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> writes: > >> Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the >> one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen >> HVM-guests, too). >> >> As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support >> while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most >> pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. > > There is an ongoing work to enable PV TLB flushing for Hyper-V guests: > http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-April/104411.html > > it utilizes .flush_tlb_others member in pv_mmu_ops. > > hopefully, this work will be merged in 4.13. Thanks for the information. I'll keep .flush_tlb_others member outside the #ifdef section. Juergen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tHpay-Ra-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1641719 |
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> writes: > Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the > one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen > HVM-guests, too). > > As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support > while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most > pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. There is an ongoing work to enable PV TLB flushing for Hyper-V guests: http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-April/104411.html it utilizes .flush_tlb_others member in pv_mmu_ops. hopefully, this work will be merged in 4.13. -- Vitaly
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web