Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation

[Avi Kivity]

On 10/07/2009 11:51 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/07/09 14:37, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
> > If the guest does a RMW on the version, but the host does not (copying
> > it from somewhere else), then the guest RMW can be lost.
> >
> > Looking at the code, that's what kvm does:
> >
> >      vcpu->hv_clock.version += 2;
> >
> >      shared_kaddr = kmap_atomic(vcpu->time_page, KM_USER0);
> >
> >      memcpy(shared_kaddr + vcpu->time_offset,&vcpu->hv_clock,
> >             sizeof(vcpu->hv_clock));
> >
> > so a guest-side ++version can be lost.
> >      
> I see, yes.  The Xen code explicitly reads back the guest version and
> increments that (I realize now that's what you meant by guest-private
> version).  If you were to have a second version number it would have to
> be separated as well to avoid being overwritten by the hypervisor.
>    

Yes.  We have the space since a cacheline is 64 bytes (minimum) vs 32 
bytes of pvclock data.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/