[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wnibd4ku.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:26:41 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
david@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com,
jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
knsathya@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 19/29] x86/topology: Disable CPU online/offline
control for TDX guests
On Thu, Feb 03 2022 at 16:00, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:11:56AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 02 2022 at 01:09, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 18:02, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> >> static bool intel_cc_platform_has(enum cc_attr attr)
>> >> {
>> >> - if (attr == CC_ATTR_GUEST_UNROLL_STRING_IO)
>> >> + switch (attr) {
>> >> + case CC_ATTR_GUEST_UNROLL_STRING_IO:
>> >> + case CC_ATTR_HOTPLUG_DISABLED:
>>
>> Not that I care much, but I faintly remember that I suggested that in
>> one of the gazillion of threads.
>
> Right, and yeah, adding a separate attribute is ok too but we already
> have a hotplug disable method. Why can't this call
>
> cpu_hotplug_disable()
>
> on the TDX init path somewhere and have this be even simpler?
That's daft. I rather have this explicit control which makes it obvious
what's going on.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists