[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuifv3mb.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:22:04 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@...el.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] perf: KVM: Fix, optimize, and clean up callbacks
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:05:25 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/09/21 09:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> In theory, I like the idea of burying intel_pt inside x86 (and even in
> >> Intel+VMX code for the most part), but the actual implementation is a
> >> bit gross. Because of the whole "KVM can be a module" thing,
> >
> > ARGH!! we should really fix that. I've heard other archs have made much
> > better choices here.
>
> I think that's only ARM, and even then it is only because of
> limitations of the hardware which mostly apply only if VHE is not in
> use.
>
> If anything, it's ARM that should support module build in VHE mode
> (Linux would still need to know whether it will be running at EL1 or
> EL2, but KVM's functionality is as self-contained as on x86 in the VHE
> case).
I don't see this happening anytime soon. At least not before we
declare the arm64 single kernel image policy to be obsolete.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists