[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJvVwXqGZWrXWPvP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:18:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.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@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/32] x86/paravirt: Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XL
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> No. We have PARAVIRT_XXL for Xen PV guests, and we have PARAVIRT for
> other hypervisor's guests, supporting basically the TLB flush operations
> and time related operations only. Adding the halt related operations to
> PARAVIRT wouldn't break anything.
Also, I don't think anything modern should actually ever hit any of the
HLT instructions, most everything should end up at an MWAIT.
Still, do we wants to give arch_safe_halt() and halt() the
PVOP_ALT_VCALL0() treatment?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists