[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a5aa9d3-e0d4-266e-5e25-021a5ea9c611@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:26:31 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/31] x86/fpu: Move KVMs FPU swapping to FPU core
On 14/10/21 14:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> In principle I don't like it very much; it would be nicer to say "you
>> enable it for QEMU itself via arch_prctl(ARCH_SET_STATE_ENABLE), and for
>> the guests via ioctl(KVM_SET_CPUID2)". But I can see why you want to
>> keep things simple, so it's not a strong objection at all.
> Errm.
>
> qemu()
> read_config()
> if (dynamic_features_passthrough())
> request_permission(feature) <- prctl(ARCH_SET_STATE_ENABLE)
>
> create_vcpu_threads()
> ....
>
> vcpu_thread()
> kvm_ioctl(ENABLE_DYN_FEATURE, feature) <- KVM ioctl
>
> That's what I lined out, right?
>
I meant prctl for QEMU-in-user-mode vs. ioctl QEMU-in-guest-mode (i.e.
no prctl if only the guest uses it). But anyway it's just abstract
"beauty", let's stick to simple. :)
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists