>>> On 17.04.15 at 04:46, <kai.hu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 11:51 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 15.04.15 at 09:03, <kai.hu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -190,9 +196,15 @@ static int hap_enable_log_dirty(struct domain *d,
>>> bool_t log_global)
>>> d->arch.paging.mode |= PG_log_dirty;
>>> paging_unlock(d);
>>>
>>> + /* enable hardware-assisted log-dirty if it is supported */
>>> + p2m_enable_hardware_log_dirty(d);
>> I don't see that you would anywhere avoid setting up software
>> log-dirty handling - is that on purpose? If so, is there really a
>> win from adding PML?
>>
>>> if ( log_global )
>>> {
>>> - /* set l1e entries of P2M table to be read-only. */
>>> + /*
>>> + * switch to log dirty mode, either by setting l1e entries of P2M
>>> table
>>> + * to be read-only, or via hardware-assisted log-dirty.
>>> + */
>>> p2m_change_entry_type_global(d, p2m_ram_rw, p2m_ram_logdirty);
>> Or did I miss you changing the behavior of this anywhere (as the
>> changed comment suggests)?
> Both of your comments are done in patch 11.
Partly - the new behavior indeed gets added there, but the misconfig
VM exits still seem to be a necessary part of the logic, so the question
stands: Is there really a win from adding PML? Or wait, I think now I
recall - the benefit comes from avoiding the protection violation exits,
not the misconfig ones. Sorry for the noise then.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
