Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Next steps with pv_ops for Xen

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

 



Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Could we use one of the software-defined bits in the PTE to indicate
that this is a foreign/granted PTE, and have set_pte_at behave
differently if you pass it a pte with this bit set?

Actually, as Gerd pointed out in his answer to his own question, the use of VM_DONTCOPY cuts out this entire code path, so we don't need to worry about it.

Mind you, it looks like we're going to go ahead and use one of the PTE bits to signify foreign PTEs anyway, per Keir's suggestion. Either way, it's going to involve making Xen-specific changes to the mm code... have you any ideas how we can either (i) get rid of the zap_pte hook in the vm_operations_struct, or (ii) make a really compelling case to the kernel maintainers that it really should get in?

Regards,

Derek.
_______________________________________________
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