[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4662f56-578b-00bd-cdc2-19d3c45eabf0@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:52:07 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 9/9] kvm_main.c: handle atomic memslot update
>> Does the invalidation already free up memslot metadata (especially the
>> rmaps) or will we end up temporarily allocating twice the memslot metadata?
>>
>
> Invalidation creates a new temporary identical memslot, I am not sure
> about the rmaps. It is anyways the same code as it was done before and
> if I understand correctly, a new slot is required to keep the old
> intact, in case something goes wrong and we need to revert.
Okay, thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists