lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 01/32] x86/paravirt: Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XL
From
Date
On 27.04.21 19:31, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + Jürgen.
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:01:28AM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Split off halt paravirt calls from CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL into
>> a separate config option. It provides a middle ground for
>> not-so-deep paravirtulized environments.
>
> Please introduce a spellchecker into your patch creation workflow.
>
> Also, what does "not-so-deep" mean?
>
>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XL will be used by TDX that needs couple of paravirt
>> calls that were hidden under CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL, but the rest of the
>> config would be a bloat for TDX.
>
> Used how? Why is it bloat for TDX?

Is there any major downside to move the halt related pvops functions
from CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL to CONFIG_PARAVIRT?

I'd rather introduce a new PARAVIRT level only in case of multiple
pvops functions needed for a new guest type, or if a real hot path
would be affected.


Juergen
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-10 10:09    [W:0.248 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site