[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zg3L6VttYZkb7N1M@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:36:41 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@...el.com>,
Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Bo2 Chen <chen.bo@...el.com>,
"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 007/130] x86/virt/tdx: Export SEAMCALL functions
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/20/24 05:09, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > I can try to do if you guys believe this should be done, and should be done
> > earlier than later, but I am not sure _ANY_ optimization around SEAMCALL will
> > have meaningful performance improvement.
>
> I don't think Sean had performance concerns.
>
> I think he was having a justifiably violent reaction to how much more
> complicated the generated code is to do a SEAMCALL versus a good ol' KVM
> hypercall.
Yep. The code essentially violates the principle of least surprise. I genuinely
thought I was dumping the wrong function(s) when I first looked at the output.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists