Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-03-02 Thread Shuai Ruan
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:33:49AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Thanks. > > > > Ok , I will do the performace test. And can you suggest me some > > workload/benchmark > > can be used here to the xsave related performance test ? > > Measuring just instruction execution time should be fine for

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 29.02.16 at 10:06, wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:42:35AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 26.02.16 at 08:41, wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:16:38AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> >> The description lacks any mention

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-29 Thread Shuai Ruan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:42:35AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.02.16 at 08:41, wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:16:38AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> The description lacks any mention of the performance impact, > >> >> and what investigation was done

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-26 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 26.02.16 at 08:41, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:16:38AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c >> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c >> >> > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_xsave_mask(const struct >> >> > vcpu *v) >> >> >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-25 Thread Shuai Ruan
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:16:38AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > I send the bugs-fix patch as whole. I just get the Cc lists using the > > script based on the whole patchset. May be I will send the patch > > seperately. > > Thank you. Please also see >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-22 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 22.02.16 at 06:35, wrote: First of all I wonder on what basis you collect your Cc lists on patches. > --- a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_xsave_mask(const struct vcpu > *v) > if (

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsave[sc]

2016-02-21 Thread Shuai Ruan
The offset at which components xsaved by xsave[sc] are not fixed. So when when a save with v->fpu_dirtied set is followed by one with v->fpu_dirtied clear, non-lazy xsave[sc] may overwriting data written by the lazy one. When xsave[sc] is enable, vcpu_xsave_mask will return XSTATE_ALL when