[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a3d2936-bd26-430f-a962-9b0f6fe0c2a0@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:02:52 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] kvm: monolithic: fixup x86-32 build
On 08/11/19 21:01, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I suppose we could use code patching mechanism to avoid the retpolines.
>> Andrea, what do you think about that? That would have the advantage
>> that we won't have to remove kvm_x86_ops. :)
>
> page 17 covers pvops:
>
> https://people.redhat.com/~aarcange/slides/2019-KVM-monolithic.pdf
You can patch call instructions directly using text_poke when
kvm_intel.ko or kvm_amd.ko, I'm not sure why that would be worse for TLB
or RAM usage. The hard part is recording the location of the call sites
using some pushsection/popsection magic.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists