[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <940453b6-7c79-33e8-bc31-3cb5f99c4c50@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:43:59 -0500
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data
when SEV is active
On 09/06/2018 01:33 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 08:54:52AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> My thought was that we could simply define a second array for the SEV
>> case to statically allocate for NR_CPUS since __decrypted has a big
>> chunk of memory that would be ununsed anyways[1]. And since the second
>> array is only used for SEV it can be freed if !SEV.
>
> Lemme see if I get it straight:
>
> __decrypted:
>
> 4K
>
> __decrypted_XXX:
>
> ((num_possible_cpus() * 32) / 4K) pages
>
> __decrypted_end:
>
> Am I close?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists