Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 17.03.14 at 17:55, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 05:19 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:33 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> No, the right thing is to unf*ck the Xen braindamage and use eagerfpu as a 
> workaround for the legacy hypervisor versions.
>> 
>> The interface wasn't an accident.  In the most common case you'll want
>> to clear the bit anyway. In PV mode clearing it would require an extra
>> trip up into the hypervisor.  So this saves one trip up into the
>> hypervisor on every context switch which involves an FPU, at the
>> expense of not being able to context-switch away when handling the
>> trap.
> 
> The interface was a complete faceplant, because it caused failures.
> You're not infinitely unconstrained since you want to play in the same
> sandbox as the native architecture, and if you want to have a hope of
> avoiding these kinds of failures you really need to avoid making random
> "improvements", certainly not without an explicit guest opt-in (the same
> we do for the native CPU architecture when adding new features.)
> 
> So if this interface wasn't an accident it was active negligence and
> incompetence.

I don't think so - while it (as we now see) disallows certain things
inside the guest, back at the time when this was designed there was
no sign of any sort of allocation/scheduling being done inside the
#NM handler. And furthermore, a PV specification is by its nature
allowed to define deviations from real hardware behavior, or else it
wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Jan


--
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/