[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc9ea270-489a-cd7c-fd68-26f22b5e49c6@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:15:38 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
"yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com" <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] kvm: Add XO memslot type
On 04/10/19 21:06, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> The reasoning was that it seems like KVM leaves it to userspace to control the
> physical address space layout since userspace decides the supported physical
> address bits and lays out memory in the physical address space. So duplication
> with XO memslots was an attempt was to keep the logic around that together.
>
> I'll take another look at doing it this way though. I think userspace may still
> need to adjust the MAXPHYADDR and be aware it can't layout memory in the XO
> range.
Right, you would have to use KVM_ENABLE_CAP passing the desired X bit
(which must be < MAXPHYADDR) as the argument. Userspace needs to know
that it must then make MAXPHYADDR in the guest CPUID equal to the
argument. When the MSR is written to 1, bit "MAXPHYADDR-1" in the page
table entries becomes an XO bit.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists