[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGM2reaKmu=h8QosuoJvJzzdTy2QfGRp9YxaKK-9UzpsfL-MoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:12:32 -0400
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, jgross@...e.com,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] x86/kvmclock: Remove memblock dependency and further cleanups
> So this still will have some overhead when kvmclock is not in use, but
> bringing it down to zero would be a massive trainwreck and even more
> indirections.
Hi Thomas,
In my opinion, having kvmclock page in __initdata for boot cpu, and
setup it in init_hypervisor_platform(). Later, switch to memblock
allocated memory in x86_init.hyper.guest_late_init() for all CPUs
would not be too bad, and might be even use fewer lines of code. In
addition, it won't have any overhead when kvm is not used.
Pavel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists