[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ea92e98-a243-ef7c-4263-bafb8946feef@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 08:35:44 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 14/32] x86/tdx: Handle port I/O
On 5/10/21 2:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Decompression code uses port IO for earlyprintk. We must use
>> paravirt calls there too if we want to allow earlyprintk.
> What is the tradeoff between teaching the decompression code to handle
> #VE (the implied assumption) vs teaching it to avoid #VE with direct
> TDVMCALLs (the chosen direction)?
To me, the tradeoff is not just "teaching" the code to handle a #VE, but
ensuring that the entire architecture works.
Intentionally invoking a #VE is like making a function call that *MIGHT*
recurse on itself. Sure, you can try to come up with a story about
bounding the recursion. But, I don't see any semblance of that in this
series.
Exception-based recursion is really nasty because it's implicit, not
explicit. That's why I'm advocating for a design where the kernel never
intentionally causes a #VE: it never intentionally recurses without bounds.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists