On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:02:47AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 02:01:18 -0500
> Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:32:09PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 05:01:12 -0500
> > > Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, the current behavior is broken.
> > > It would be good to add a description of under what conditions
> > > monitor is not used. Is this some part of a project emulating
> > > Hyper-V?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure which conditions determine whether the monitor mechanism is
> > used. I've searched the Hypervisor TLFS, and I couldn't find any
> > information. If you have any suggestions for where I can find this
> > information, please let me know.
>
> The monitor page stuff pre-dates my involvement with Hyper-V. KY might know.
> But based on comments it looks like it was added to avoid hypercalls
> for each message. It probably showed up in Windows Server 2012 timeframe.
>
> To test you might want to dig up Windows Server 2008.
>
It looks like the monitor mechanism has always been used. It's present in the
earliest commit that I can find: 3e7ee4902fe6 ("add the Hyper-V virtual bus")
from 2009.
I propose that the following sentences be added to the sysfs documentation for
the affected attributes:
"The monitor page mechanism is used for performance critical channels (storage,
network, etc.). Channels that do not use the monitor page mechanism will return
EINVAL."
I think that this provides sufficient information for a user to understand why
opening an affected file can return EINVAL. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
