On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:44 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:12 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > Allow paravirtualized guest to do special handling for some page faults. > > > > > > The patch adds one 'if' to do_page_fault() function. The call is patched > > > out when running on physical HW. I ran kernbech on the kernel with and > > > without that additional 'if' and result were rawly the same: > > > > So why not program a different handler address for the #PF/#GP faults > > and avoid the if all together? > I would gladly use fault vector reserved by x86 architecture, but I am > not sure Intel will be happy about it. Whatever are we doing to end up in do_page_fault() as it stands? Surely we can tell the CPU to go elsewhere to handle faults? Isn't that as simple as calling set_intr_gate(14, my_page_fault) somewhere on the cpuinit instead of the regular page_fault handler? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
