Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754127Ab0AQPMq (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:12:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753910Ab0AQPMp (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:12:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6909 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753882Ab0AQPMp (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:12:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:12:18 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, riel@redhat.com, cl@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] Add "handle page fault" PV helper. Message-ID: <20100117151218.GJ31692@redhat.com> References: <1262700774-1808-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1262700774-1808-5-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1263490267.4244.340.camel@laptop> <20100117144411.GI31692@redhat.com> <1263740980.557.20980.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263740980.557.20980.camel@twins> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1386 Lines: 30 On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:09:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:44 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:12 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > Allow paravirtualized guest to do special handling for some page faults. > > > > > > > > The patch adds one 'if' to do_page_fault() function. The call is patched > > > > out when running on physical HW. I ran kernbech on the kernel with and > > > > without that additional 'if' and result were rawly the same: > > > > > > So why not program a different handler address for the #PF/#GP faults > > > and avoid the if all together? > > I would gladly use fault vector reserved by x86 architecture, but I am > > not sure Intel will be happy about it. > > Whatever are we doing to end up in do_page_fault() as it stands? Surely > we can tell the CPU to go elsewhere to handle faults? > > Isn't that as simple as calling set_intr_gate(14, my_page_fault) > somewhere on the cpuinit instead of the regular page_fault handler? > Hmm, good idea. I'll look into that. Thanks. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/