WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance

To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:24:47 +0000
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Phillips <rphillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Guthro <bguthro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:25:42 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1193761185.31834.20.camel@bling>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcgbEWMJoeHomIcEEdy3OgAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [PATCH] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Std VGA Performance
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
Yeah, hopefully that's a bug in the comment. I would expect 4-byte accesses
to be possible and be handled. As for 8-byte accesses, they can certainly
happen, why not? Unlikely at start of day, but once we're in x86/64 mode
there's no reason why not.

 -- Keir

On 30/10/07 16:19, "Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@xxxxxx> wrote:

>    Yes, you're right, but easy to overlook, and I'm not sure how it
> works on x86.  I copied the x86 code for filling in the buffered ioreq,
> but failed to notice that it attempts to store 4 bytes of data into a 2
> byte field...  The comment for the size entry in buf_ioreq could be
> interpreted that only 1, 2, and 8 bytes are expected, but I definitely
> see 4 bytes on occasion.  I'd guess x86 has a bug here that's simply not
> exposed because of the 16bit code that's probably being used to
> initialize VGA.  I also question the 8 byte support, which is why I
> skipped it in the patch below.  Wouldn't an 8 byte MMIO access that
> isn't a timeoffset be possible?  Keir, please apply this to the staging
> tree.  Thanks,



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