Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM paravirt_ops implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Zachary Amsden wrote:
Unless you also migrate the hypercall page itself and impose migration restrictions on compatible hypercall pages.

Seems unreasonable, especially if you support migration between VT and SVM machines. The whole point of a hypercall page is to give you a point of indirection in order to hide these kinds of hardware differences; migrating it would defeat the purpose.

Although I favor the guarantee that execution within the hypercall page is finished - it is important for protecting against non-reentrancy as well. Think about interrupts during batching / queueing operations.

Not quite sure that's specifically relevant to migration, but yes, its important to disable interrupts while doing the setup for a batch of stuff unless you want to see some surprises in your queue (and not "Oh, yay, a puppy!" kind of surprises).

   J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux