On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:34:16AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/17/2010 06:44 AM, 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. > > > > That's what it's there for... see Peter Z.'s response. > Do you mean I can use one of exception vectors reserved by Intel (20-31)? What Peter Z says is that I can register my own handler for #PF and avoid the 'if' in non PV case as far as I understand him. -- Gleb. -- 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
