[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e2ab02c-b324-e136-924a-0376040163a8@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:31:17 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Cooper, Andrew" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts of AMX KVM support based on latest kernel
On 11/17/21 05:52, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> If a (creative) guest wants to set XFD[AMX] = 1 for fun while keeping
> AMX state alive without saving the AXM state, it may lose the state
> after VM exit/entry.
I think this should not happen, unless you also document that other
random events (hypothetically, it could be some other core using AMX?)
can cause the loss of XTILEDATA if XFD[AMX]=1. Virtualization should
not be special, I'd prefer that the guest has the same behavior as bare
metal in this respect.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists