[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21e8d65c-62bd-b410-1260-1ff4b0e0c251@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 21:54:06 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"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>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 26/59] KVM: x86: Introduce vm_teardown() hook in
kvm_arch_vm_destroy()
On 11/25/21 20:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24 2021 at 16:20, isaku yamahata wrote:
>> Add a second kvm_x86_ops hook in kvm_arch_vm_destroy() to support TDX's
>> destruction path, which needs to first put the VM into a teardown state,
>> then free per-vCPU resource, and finally free per-VM resources.
>>
>> Note, this knowingly creates a discrepancy in nomenclature for SVM as
>> svm_vm_teardown() invokes avic_vm_destroy() and sev_vm_destroy().
>> Moving the now-misnamed functions or renaming them is left to a future
>> patch so as not to introduce a functional change for SVM.
> That's just the wrong way around. Fixup SVM first and then add the TDX
> muck on top. Stop this 'left to a future patch' nonsense. I know for
> sure that those future patches never materialize.
Or just keep vm_destroy for the "early" destruction, and give a new name
to the new hook. It is used to give back the TDCS memory, so perhaps
you can call it vm_free?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists