Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:47:38PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote: >> Tony & all: >> Recently we have completed the IVT.s pv_ops by using dual >> compile, and also many cleanups to simplify the changes to upstream >> code. All the C code touching privilege instruction is replaced with >> indirect function call (will be binary patched to use direct function >> call in future), and IVT table is dual compiled to minimize impact to >> native IVT table, but we get some dilemma in handling kernel/entry.S >> and also generic policy for other ASM files. >> >> In entry.S, there are around 17 privilege instructions, some of >> them must be paravirtualized including 2 cover instructions, and 1 >> "RFI" (this one is due to Xen hypervisor issue). There are other 15 >> privilege instructions (In Xen) such as CR access that could be >> paravirtualized for performance reason. > > Probably we can discusse well with the concrete patch. > So I'll post the patches. > (Creating the reviewable patch set may take a while though.)
If it is 200 lines of patch, that is perfect. If it is a 2000+ lines of patch, I prefer a 200 lines of pseudo code. > > >> Now we have 2 choices: >> Alt1: Dual compile entry.S like IVT.s (dual compile all ASM >> files if it needs virtualization) >> pros: Same policy with iVT, use same MACRO to >> replacement. >> cons: There are other ASM files such as >> sn/kernel/pio_phys.S need to be dual compiled too. >> And unlike IVT table, the memory occupied by >> dual compiled code won't be able to be freed easily since the size is >> not fixed. Also all future ASM code touch privilege instruction may >> need to be dual compiled too. > > I suppose the more generalized problem is > - The memory for unused pv code/data won't be executed/referenced > so that it can be freed somehow. > Is it worth while to do that? And how to do it? For IVT table (64K) & gate page (1 page), it can be done except relocating those IP relative symbols. > Looking at current xen code size it might be worth while, > but not so big win. Agree in some level. Depend on how strictly we want the code to be perfect. > This is not ia64 specific issues, and should be addressed > in arch generic way. This hasn't been addressed even on x86. X86 doesn't use dual compile. Eddie _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
