[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230216181230.3jn5hebv3xkdivbx@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 21:12:30 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec enabling in TDX guest
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:50:32AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/13/23 15:48, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > The patch brings basic enabling of kexec in TDX guests.
> >
> > By "basic enabling" I mean, kexec in the guests with a single CPU.
> > TDX guests use ACPI MADT MPWK to bring up secondary CPUs. The mechanism
> > doesn't allow to put a CPU back offline if it has woken up.
> >
> > We are looking into this, but it might take time.
>
> This is simple enough. But, nobody will _actually_ use this code as-is,
> right? What's the point of applying it now?
Why nobody? Single CPU VMs are not that uncommon.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists