>>> On 06.01.16 at 12:50, <ta...@tklengyel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/16 11:42, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> On 23.12.15 at 15:53, < <ta...@tklengyel.com>ta...@tklengyel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > @@ -83,6 +84,12 @@ static int hvm_event_traps(uint8_t sync,
>>> vm_event_request_t *req)
>>> > vm_event_vcpu_pause(curr);
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > + if ( altp2m_active(currd) )
>>> > + {
>>> > + req->flags |= VM_EVENT_FLAG_ALTERNATE_P2M;
>>> > + req->altp2m_idx = vcpu_altp2m(curr).p2midx;
>>> > + }
>>>
>>> So far this info was provided just for MEM_ACCESS events. Now
>>> you provide it for a few more ones, but wouldn't this then better
>>> be supplied for all of them, namely also the other two MEM ones?
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK altp2m is currently incompatible with sharing. I'm not 100% sure but
>> I think it's also incompatible with paging.
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are strictly incompatible; I don't see a technical
>> reason preventing some development work to make them function together.
>>
>> Whether this happens or not is a very different matter.
>
> Sure, the two systems can be made to work in tandem, this work just hasn't
> been done yet. I would very much like to get that to work in the future.
Which re-raises the question: Shouldn't the information then be
made available uniformly for all events?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
