lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [12]   [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 12.05.21 15:24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2021 6:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
>>> No. We have PARAVIRT_XXL for Xen PV guests, and we have PARAVIRT for
>>> other hypervisor's guests, supporting basically the TLB flush operations
>>> and time related operations only. Adding the halt related operations to
>>> PARAVIRT wouldn't break anything.
>> Also, I don't think anything modern should actually ever hit any of the
>> HLT instructions, most everything should end up at an MWAIT.
>>
>> Still, do we wants to give arch_safe_halt() and halt() the
>> PVOP_ALT_VCALL0() treatment?
>
> From performance reasons it's pointless to patch. HLT (and MWAIT) are
> so slow anyways that using patching or an indirect pointer is completely
> in the noise. So I would use whatever is cleanest in the code.

This would probably be x86_platform_ops.hyper hooks.


Juergen
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-12 15:51    [W:0.726 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site