[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f558d9b-a4d8-094b-f3d2-4d9fda945cd9@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:37:33 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
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,
thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 10/30] x86/tdx: Handle CPUID via #VE
On 2/28/22 15:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> Does this, in practice, keep TDX guests from detecting any features that
>> it supports today?
> I scanned through the list of CPUID that probed via #VE during the boot
> and they are related to cache/TLB hierarchy enumeration, thermal and
> topology. Without cache/TLB enumeration we may miss some optimization.
> Topology can be problematic, we may miss ability to communicate the
> configuration, I donno.
>
> Shouldn't be a show-stopper.
I can live with that for an initial TDX guest series. Does that bother
anyone else?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists