[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <grmalijxenphqg664brbqbreitq3qkancb7qv32yjdwzfoqowy@6tavdslt75i7>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:33:37 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/boot: Implement early memory acceptance for
SEV-SNP
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 07:21:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 18:44, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:07:03AM -0700, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> > > > If the GHCB is available, we should always prefer it.
> > >
> > > I believe we should consider the cost of code duplication in this
> > > situation.
> > >
> > > If the non-early version is only used in the kexec path, it will not be
> > > tested as frequently and could be more easily broken. I think it would be
> > > acceptable for kexec to be slightly slower if it results in more
> > > maintainable code.
> >
> > Absolutely so.
> >
>
> It would be nice if someone could quantify 'slightly slower' - I am
> leaning to the same conclusion but I have no clue what the actual
> performance impact is.
If we can survive the performance of the initial boot, we can live with it
for kexec.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists