[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200309202215.GM12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:22:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:05:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> > I'm okay with the save/restore dance, I guess. It's just yet more
> > entry crud to deal with architecture nastiness, except that this
> > nastiness is 100% software and isn't Intel/AMD's fault.
>
> And we can do it in C and don't have to fiddle with it in the ASM
> maze.
Right; I'd still love to kill KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS though, even if
we do the save/restore in do_nmi(). That is some wild brain melt. Also,
AFAIK none of the distros are actually shipping a PREEMPT=y kernel
anyway, so killing it shouldn't matter much.
If people want to recover that, I'd suggest they sit down and create a
sane paravirt interface for this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists