[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWGf6BAdji=rqKPnyvFzzUQscA5rXU8SY4RcWXymyVL1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:50:06 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, rkagan@...tuozzo.com,
den@...tuozzo.com, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] make L2's kvm-clock stable, get rid of
pvclock_gtod_copy in KVM
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Denis Plotnikov
<dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> ping!
>
I still don't feel my questions have been well answered. Its really
not clear to me why, in order to allow the level-2 guest to use a vdso
that the answer is to export more data through the entire stack rather
then to make the kvmclock to be usable from the vsyscall.
So far for a problem statement, all I've got is:
"However, when using nested virtualization you have
L0: bare-metal hypervisor (uses TSC)
L1: nested hypervisor (uses kvmclock, can use vsyscall)
L2: nested guest
and L2 cannot use vsyscall because it is not using the TSC."
Which is a start but doesn't really make it clear why the proposed
solution is best/necessary.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists