--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > /*
> > * x86 arch doesn't have an easy way to find out where
> > * gs is located. So we need to read the MSR. But first
> > * we need to save off the rcx, rax and rdx.
> >
> Why don't you store it in g
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> /*
>* x86 arch doesn't have an easy way to find out where
>* gs is located. So we need to read the MSR. But first
>* we need to save off the rcx, rax and rdx.
>
Why don't you store it in gs? movq %gs:my_gs_base, %rax?
J
-
To unsubscribe
--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:47:05AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > asm volatile ("pushq %2; pushq %%rsp; pushfq; pushq %3; call *%6;"
> > /* The stack we pushed is off by 8, due to the
> > previous pushq */
> >
On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Similar.
> > I don't think so. They are live here, but restore_args follows, so we
> > can safely clobber anything here. Right?
>
> The non argument registers cannot be clobbered.
But they are not. Yeah, I ommited it in the changelog, (it is in
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 15:58:06 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > +#define SYSRETQ \
> > > + movq%gs:pda_oldrsp,%rsp;\
> > > + swapgs;
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:47:05AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> /me working very hard to get lguest64 ready for public display
>
> Here's a snippet from my version of core.c. I've been thinking of ways to
> optimize it, but for now it works fine. This was done for both ring 3 and
> ring 1 lgues
--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > When I said "this part of the code I don't fully understand" I was not
> > talking about entry.S. I understand entry.S very well, but the comment
> > was originally on the paranoid_restore code. Which I thought had to deal
> > with NMIs and such that
> > ENTRY adds alignment. Why do you need that export anyways?
>
> The paravirt ops struct points to it.
But the paravirt_ops probably won't need it as an export. So I guess
andi is right.
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the mo
Thank you for the attention, andi
let's go:
On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +#define SYSRETQ \
> > + movq%gs:pda_oldrsp,%rsp;\
> > + swapgs; \
> > +
--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > If you were talking about the general iretq => INTERRUPT_RETURN, then the
> > answer is "Yes, they are sufficient". The first version of lguest ran the
> > guest kernel in ring 3 (using dual page tables for guest kernel and guest
> > user). The curren
> If you were talking about the general iretq => INTERRUPT_RETURN, then the
> answer is "Yes, they are sufficient". The first version of lguest ran the
> guest kernel in ring 3 (using dual page tables for guest kernel and guest
> user). The current version I'm pushing runs lguest in ring 1, and th
> When I said "this part of the code I don't fully understand" I was not
> talking about entry.S. I understand entry.S very well, but the comment
> was originally on the paranoid_restore code. Which I thought had to deal
> with NMIs and such that I didn't worry about that I simply did the
> defaul
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >> paranoid_restore\trace:
> >> RESTORE_ALL 8
> >> - iretq
> >> + INTERRUPT_RETURN
> >
> >I suspect Xen will need much more changes anyways because of its
> >ring 3 guest. Are these changes suffic
--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Probably not, but this part of the code I don't fully understand.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to defer all this until at least one example to test it
Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >
> > > Probably not, but this part of the code I don't fully understand.
> >
> > I would suggest to defer all this until at least one example to test it
> > (except vsmp which is too simple) is around.
>
> Wh
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Probably not, but this part of the code I don't fully understand.
>
> I would suggest to defer all this until at least one example to test it
> (except vsmp which is too simple) is around.
Who uses that code? NMIs and debug regs? Lguest only has the h
> Probably not, but this part of the code I don't fully understand.
I would suggest to defer all this until at least one example to test it
(except vsmp which is too simple) is around.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Hi Andi,
Thanks for all the comments, it's greatly appreciated.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > +#define SYSRETQ\
> > + movq%gs:pda_oldrsp,%rsp;\
> > + swapgs; \
> > +
> +#define SYSRETQ \
> + movq%gs:pda_oldrsp,%rsp;\
> + swapgs; \
> + sysretq;
When the macro does more than sysret it should have a different
name
> */
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
