Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] One unstablity in fast syscall path

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:49:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 08:36 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > That's the real problem, though we're not sure why this phenomenon is 
> > easier to be reproduced after creating VTI domain. Quick/easy solution 
> > can be to roll back above changeset to ensure tree stability first, and
> > then 
> > community needs to think more robust solution later.
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
>    Thanks for tracking this down, I've seen some instability lately too.
> Isaku, should we back this one out until it can be stabilized or do you
> have a more direct solution?  Thanks,

Sorry for the regression. Please back it out.
The correctness has higher priority than performance,
the patch should be backed out since it focuses on only performance.

There are the following choices for right fix, I think.

A. use hypercall instead of hyperprivop.
B. introduce new flag for hyperprivop instread VPSR.ic as Tristan proposed.
C. use one of itr to map vDSO.
D. abondan vDSO paravirtualization.

Thanks.
-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] how to make a "smp xen0 config file", thanks, Tian, Kevin

Next by Date:

RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] One unstablity in fast syscall path, Tian, Kevin

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] One unstablity in fast syscall path, Alex Williamson

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] One unstablity in fast syscall path, Isaku Yamahata

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]