[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87po0lkgly.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:27:21 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc: "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
"x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"devel\@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Kelley (EOSG)
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:57 AM
>> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>; x86@...nel.org
>> Cc: devel@...uxdriverproject.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; KY
>> Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang
>> <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger
>> <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>; Ingo
>> Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>; H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>; Tianyu Lan
>> <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper
>> HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible
>>
>> ...
>>>
>> This is a good idea. We should probably do the same with the hypercalls for
>> sending
>> IPIs -- try the simpler version first and move to the more complex _EX
>> version only
>> if necessary.
> I am not sure if this would work correctly. When I was developing the IPI enlightenment,
> what I remember was that the guest is expected to use the API recommended by the Hypervisor.
>
I was under the same impression when I implemented PV TLB flush. Turns
out HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_RECOMMENDED is a misnomer or at least
Windows treats it as HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_AVAILABLE instead using
only when needed.
My guess would be that the situation with IPI is the same. In any case I
can try to implement Hyper-V style PV IPIs for Windows in KVM and we'll
see how Windows uses these hypercalls :-)
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists