[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a06f9b81-38c1-4be8-9d07-6db31530741e@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:52:53 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, bgardon@...gle.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, erdemaktas@...gle.com, ackerleytng@...gle.com,
jxgao@...gle.com, sagis@...gle.com, oupton@...gle.com, peterx@...hat.com,
vkuznets@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com, pgonda@...gle.com,
michael.roth@....com, kirill@...temov.name, thomas.lendacky@....com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
andrew.jones@...ux.dev, corbet@....net, hch@....de,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, bp@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 0/5] x86: CVMs: Align memory conversions to 2M
granularity
There's a bunch of code in the kernel for TDX and SEV guests. How much
of it uses the "CVM" nomenclature?
What do you do when you need to dynamically scale up the SWIOTLB size
and can't allocate a 2M page? I guess you're saying here that you'd
rather run with a too-small 2M pool than a large-enough mixed 4k/2M pool.
I also had a really hard time parsing through the problem statement and
solution here. I'd really suggest cleaning up the problem statement and
more clearly differentiating the host and guest sides in the description.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists