[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5fca35af-b390-46d1-b5ab-9312fa740599@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:39:14 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 07/23] x86/virt/tdx: Add skeleton to enable TDX on
demand
On 18.10.23 г. 11:29 ч., Huang, Kai wrote:
>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Do the module global initialization once and return its result.
>>> + * It can be done on any cpu. It's always called with interrupts
>>> + * disabled.
>>> + */
>>> +static int try_init_module_global(void)
>>> +{
>>
>> Any particular reason why this function is not called from the tdx
>> module's tdx_init? It's global and must be called once when the module
>> is initialised. Subsequently kvm which is supposed to call
>> tdx_cpu_enable() must be sequenced _after_ tdx which shouldn't be that
>> hard, no? This will eliminate the spinlock as well.
>>
>
> Do you mean early_initcall(tdx_init)?
>
> Because it requires VMXON being done to do SEAMCALL. For now only KVM does
> VMXON.
>
Right, then would it not make more sense too have this code as part of
the KVM bringup of TDX. In fact by keeping the 2 series separate you
might be adding complexity. What is the initial motivation to keep those
patches out of the KVM tdx host series support?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists