quoted

quoted

On 04.01.13 at 16:15, Daniel Kiper [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 09:34:55AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 27.12.12 at 03:18, Daniel Kiper [off-list ref] wrote:

Some implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use part of identity page 

table

quoted

quoted

to construct transition page table. It means that they require separate 

PUDs,

quoted

quoted

PMDs and PTEs for virtual and physical (identity) mapping. To satisfy that
requirement add extra pointer to PGD, PUD, PMD and PTE and align existing
code.

So you keep posting this despite it having got pointed out on each
earlier submission that this is unnecessary, proven by the fact that
the non-pvops Xen kernels can get away without it. Why?

Sorry but I forgot to reply for your email last time.

I am still not convinced. I have tested SUSE kernel itself and it does not 
work.
Maybe I missed something but... Please check 
arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c:init_transition_pgtable()

I can see:

vaddr = (unsigned long)relocate_kernel;

and later:

pgd += pgd_index(vaddr);
...

I think that mapping is simply irrelevant, as the code at
relocate_kernel gets copied to the control page and
invoked there (other than in the native case, where
relocate_kernel() gets invoked directly).

Jan

It is wrong. relocate_kernel() virtual address in Xen is different
than its virtual address in Linux Kernel. That is why transition
page table could not be established in Linux Kernel and so on...
How does this work in SUSE? I do not have an idea.

I am happy to fix that but whatever fix for it is
I would like to be sure that it works.

Daniel