|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10] p2m/ept: Enable PML in p2m-ept for log-dirty.
On 04/09/2015 08:20 PM, Tim Deegan wrote: I do agree we should also set A if PML is enabled for the domain, and looks there's no harm to set A bit for all present leaf types. Actually there should be no harm to set A bit even the leaf entry is not present..At 10:35 +0800 on 27 Mar (1427452554), Kai Huang wrote: But for D bit I think we should be more specific. For p2m types that are writable, we should set the D-bit to avoid unnecessary GPA logging, but for those are read-only, I think it's not reasonable to set D bit, as it's not possible for them to be dirty. In my understanding, A/D bits actually are ignored if EPT A/D bit is not enabled in EPTP. Citing one statement in SDM for an example:You will still need to check whether the CPU supports the A/D bits, since AIUI those are reserved bits otherwise. "If bit 6 of EPTP is 1, accessed flag for EPT; indicates whether software has accessed the 4-KByte page referenced by this entry (see Section 28.2.4). Ignored if bit 6 of EPTP is 0".Therefore I think it's unnecessary to check whether CPU supports A/D bits prior to setting A/D bits. The checking is an overhead anyway. And it reminds me we can safely set A bit in middle level entry in splitting super page case, which you pointed out in patch 1 to enable A/D bits. Of course it's safer to operate A/D bits with whether cpu supports A/D bits checked, and we might better do it. Is this reasonable? Thanks, -Kai
Sure. Thanks, -Kai Cheers, Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |