Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Vp should never happen, since you'd never preserve a V page. And
>> surely it would be Pr -> Sr, since the hypervisor wouldn't push the
>> page to backing store when you change the client state.
>>
>
> You're right, I meant Vp/Pp but they are invalid states. I think one of
> the things that keeps tripping me up is that the host can change both
> the host and guest page states. My initial impression was that the host
> handled the host state and the guest handled the guest state.
>
Yes. And it seems to me that you get unfortunate outcomes if you have a
Pr->Vz->Vr transition.
>>> Do the host states even really need visibility to the guest at all?
>>> It may be useful for the guest to be able to distinguish between Ur
>>> and Uz but it doesn't seem necessary.
>>>
>> Well, you implicitly see the hypervisor state. If you touch a [UV]z
>> page then you get a fault telling you that the page has been taken
>> away from you (I think). And it would definitely help with debugging
>> (seems likely there's lots of scope for race conditions if you
>> prematurely tell the hypervisor you don't need the page any more...).
>>
>
> I was thinking that it may be useful to know a Ur verses a Uz when
> allocating memory. In this case, you'd rather allocate Ur pages verses
> Uz to avoid the fault. I don't read s390 arch code well, is the host
> state explicit to the guest?
>
Yes, reusing Ur pages might well be better, but who knows - they've
probably got an instruction which makes Uz cheap...
Stuff like this suggets that both parts of the state are packed
together, and are guest-visible:
+ return (state & ESSA_USTATE_MASK) == ESSA_USTATE_VOLATILE &&
+ (state & ESSA_CSTATE_MASK) == ESSA_CSTATE_ZERO;
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
