Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 01/32] x86/paravirt: Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XL | From | Juergen Gross <> | Date | Mon, 10 May 2021 10:07:53 +0200 |
| |
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] | |