[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9529e874-6fd3-81d8-0a50-bf2efea6c113@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:09:55 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
linux@...linux.org.uk, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
peterz@...radead.org, prarit@...hat.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/11] kvm/x86: remove kvm memblock dependency
On 06/07/2018 17:03, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> I think using __initdata during init_hypervisor_platform() +
> allocating during x86_init.hyper.guest_late_init() is a good approach.
> My only concern, it would mean we need to init/uinit/init clock for
> boot cpu. Does it mean the clock continuity is preserved during the
> transition? I believe so, but needs to be verified.
Yes, it's the same as any other pvclock update.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists