[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 2/4] x86/hvm: Treat non-instruction fetch nested page faults also as read violations
- To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Tamas Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:49:52 +0100
- Cc: "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "JBeulich@xxxxxxxx" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx" <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, "boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx" <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, "suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx" <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:50:24 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
|
On 14/08/14 17:43, Tian, Kevin wrote:
but doing so just moves from one incomplete
solution (where read-modify-write is not treated as
read-violation) to another incomplete solution (where all
writes are treated read-violation). If there’s actual usage
relying on accurate read-violation information, either
solution doesn’t work. So I don’t see the value of this
change.
I would agree. Anything using this information will have to have
detailed knowledge of what the hardware is capable of reporting, to
understand the information it has to hand.
I think Xen should faithfully pass on what hardware reports. It
will be more useful to the consumer than blurring the details like
this.
~Andrew
|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
