[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0cdc6e9d-88eb-4ead-8d55-985474257d53@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 10:14:20 +0200
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, acme@...nel.org,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, peterz@...radead.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
wei.liu@...nel.org, ajay.kaher@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, decui@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 21/34] x86/msr: Utilize the alternatives mechanism
to write MSR
On 24.04.25 10:06, Xin Li wrote:
> On 4/23/2025 9:05 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> It's not a major change, but when it is patched to use the immediate form MSR
>>> write instruction, it's straightforwardly streamlined.
>>
>> It should be rather easy to switch the current wrmsr/rdmsr paravirt patching
>> locations to use the rdmsr/wrmsr instructions instead of doing a call to
>> native_*msr().
>>
>> The case of the new immediate form could be handled the same way.
>
> Actually, that is how we get this patch with the existing alternatives
> infrastructure. And we took a step further to also remove the pv_ops
> MSR APIs...
And this is what I'm questioning. IMHO this approach is adding more
code by removing the pv_ops MSR_APIs just because "pv_ops is bad". And
I believe most refusal of pv_ops is based on no longer valid reasoning.
> It looks to me that you want to add a new facility to the alternatives
> infrastructure first?
Why would we need a new facility in the alternatives infrastructure?
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3684 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists