Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
From: Zachary Amsden <hidden>
Date: 2006-08-23 02:12:13
Also in:
lkml
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 15:02 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:quoted
Well, I don't think anything is sufficient for a preemptible kernel. I think that's just plain not going to work. You could have a kernel thread that got preempted in a paravirt-op patch pointPatching over the 6 native cases is actually not that bad: they're listed below (each one has trailing noops). cli sti push %eax; popf pushf; pop %eax pushf; pop %eax; cli iret sti; sysexit If you're at the first insn you don't have to do anything, since you're about to replace that code. If you're in the noops, you can just advance EIP to the end. You can't be preempted between sti and sysexit, since we only use that when interrupts are already disabled. And reversing either "push %eax" or "pushf; pop %eax" is fairly easy. Depending on your hypervisor, you might need to catch those threads who are currently doing the paravirt_ops function calls, as well. This introduces more (and more complex) cases.
Yes, but the problem gets far worse. You don't need to worry about just those. You need to worry about all that C code that runs in the native paravirt-ops as well, because you could have preempted it in the middle of a callout. And the paravirt_ops code isn't isolated in a separate section (though it well could be). Zach