On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 08:44:57PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:20:50AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 01:07:04PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > Can't you set a bit in vcpu->requests instead, and handle it in "out:" > > > > at the end of vcpu_enter_guest? > > > > > > > > To have a single entry point for pagefaults, after vmexit handling. > > > Jumping to "out:" will skip vmexit handling anyway, so we will not reuse > > > same call site anyway. I don't see yet why the way you propose will have > > > an advantage. > > > > What i meant was to call pagefault handler after vmexit handling. > > > > Because the way it is in your patch now, with pre pagefault on entry, > > one has to make an effort to verify ordering wrt other events on entry > > processing. > > > What events do you have in mind? TLB flushing, event injection, etc. > > With pre pagefault after vmexit, its more natural. > > > I do not see non-ugly way to pass information that is needed to perform > the prefault to the place you want me to put it. We can skip guest entry > in case prefault was done which will have the same effect as your > proposal, but I want to have a good reason to do so since otherwise we > will just do more work for nothing on guest entry. The reason is that it becomes similar to normal pagefault handling. I don't have a specific bug to give you as example. > > > Does that make sense? > > -- > Gleb. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>