From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Julien Thierry" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
"Suzuki K Pouloze" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: Stolen time support
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:05:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190803190522.5fec8f7d@why> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190802145017.42543-1-steven.price@arm.com>
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:50:08 +0100
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
Hi Steven,
> This series add support for paravirtualized time for arm64 guests and
> KVM hosts following the specification in Arm's document DEN 0057A:
>
> https://developer.arm.com/docs/den0057/a
>
> It implements support for stolen time, allowing the guest to
> identify time when it is forcibly not executing.
>
> It doesn't implement support for Live Physical Time (LPT) as there are
> some concerns about the overheads and approach in the above
> specification, and I expect an updated version of the specification to
> be released soon with just the stolen time parts.
Thanks for posting this.
My current concern with this series is around the fact that we allocate
memory from the kernel on behalf of the guest. It is the first example
of such thing in the ARM port, and I can't really say I'm fond of it.
x86 seems to get away with it by having the memory allocated from
userspace, why I tend to like more. Yes, put_user is more
expensive than a straight store, but this isn't done too often either.
What is the rational for your current approach?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: Stolen time support
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:05:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190803190522.5fec8f7d@why> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190802145017.42543-1-steven.price@arm.com>
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:50:08 +0100
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
Hi Steven,
> This series add support for paravirtualized time for arm64 guests and
> KVM hosts following the specification in Arm's document DEN 0057A:
>
> https://developer.arm.com/docs/den0057/a
>
> It implements support for stolen time, allowing the guest to
> identify time when it is forcibly not executing.
>
> It doesn't implement support for Live Physical Time (LPT) as there are
> some concerns about the overheads and approach in the above
> specification, and I expect an updated version of the specification to
> be released soon with just the stolen time parts.
Thanks for posting this.
My current concern with this series is around the fact that we allocate
memory from the kernel on behalf of the guest. It is the first example
of such thing in the ARM port, and I can't really say I'm fond of it.
x86 seems to get away with it by having the memory allocated from
userspace, why I tend to like more. Yes, put_user is more
expensive than a straight store, but this isn't done too often either.
What is the rational for your current approach?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Suzuki K Pouloze" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
"Julien Thierry" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: Stolen time support
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:05:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190803190522.5fec8f7d@why> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190802145017.42543-1-steven.price@arm.com>
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:50:08 +0100
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
Hi Steven,
> This series add support for paravirtualized time for arm64 guests and
> KVM hosts following the specification in Arm's document DEN 0057A:
>
> https://developer.arm.com/docs/den0057/a
>
> It implements support for stolen time, allowing the guest to
> identify time when it is forcibly not executing.
>
> It doesn't implement support for Live Physical Time (LPT) as there are
> some concerns about the overheads and approach in the above
> specification, and I expect an updated version of the specification to
> be released soon with just the stolen time parts.
Thanks for posting this.
My current concern with this series is around the fact that we allocate
memory from the kernel on behalf of the guest. It is the first example
of such thing in the ARM port, and I can't really say I'm fond of it.
x86 seems to get away with it by having the memory allocated from
userspace, why I tend to like more. Yes, put_user is more
expensive than a straight store, but this isn't done too often either.
What is the rational for your current approach?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-03 18:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 141+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-02 14:50 [PATCH 0/9] arm64: Stolen time support Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 1/9] KVM: arm64: Document PV-time interface Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-03 11:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 3:23 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-05 3:23 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-05 3:23 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 16:40 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-05 16:40 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-05 16:40 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-07 13:21 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 13:21 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 13:21 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 14:28 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-07 15:26 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 15:26 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 15:26 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 2/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Factor out hypercall handling from PSCI code Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 3/9] KVM: arm64: Implement PV_FEATURES call Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-03 11:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 13:14 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:14 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:14 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 4/9] KVM: arm64: Support stolen time reporting via shared structure Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-03 11:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 11:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 14:09 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 14:09 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 14:09 ` Steven Price
2019-08-03 17:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 17:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 17:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 14:18 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 14:18 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 14:18 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 5/9] KVM: Allow kvm_device_ops to be const Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV_TIME device to user space Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-03 12:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 12:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 12:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 17:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 17:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 17:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-07 13:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 13:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 13:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-07 13:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-07 13:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-07 13:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 16:10 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 16:10 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 16:10 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 16:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 16:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 16:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 7/9] arm/arm64: Provide a wrapper for SMCCC 1.1 calls Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 10:03 ` Will Deacon
2019-08-05 10:03 ` Will Deacon
2019-08-05 10:03 ` Will Deacon
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 8/9] arm/arm64: Make use of the SMCCC 1.1 wrapper Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` [PATCH 9/9] arm64: Retrieve stolen time as paravirtualized guest Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-02 14:50 ` Steven Price
2019-08-04 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-04 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-04 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-08 15:29 ` Steven Price
2019-08-08 15:29 ` Steven Price
2019-08-08 15:29 ` Steven Price
2019-08-08 15:49 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-08 15:49 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-08 15:49 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-09 13:51 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-09 13:51 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-09 13:51 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-12 10:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-12 10:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-12 10:39 ` Steven Price
2019-08-13 6:06 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-13 6:06 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-13 6:06 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-08-03 18:05 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2019-08-03 18:05 ` [PATCH 0/9] arm64: Stolen time support Marc Zyngier
2019-08-03 18:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:06 ` Steven Price
2019-08-05 13:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 13:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-05 13:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-14 13:02 ` Alexander Graf
2019-08-14 13:02 ` Alexander Graf
2019-08-14 13:02 ` Alexander Graf
2019-08-14 14:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-14 14:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-08-14 14:52 ` [UNVERIFIED SENDER] " Alexander Graf
2019-08-14 14:52 ` Alexander Graf
2019-08-14 14:52 ` Alexander Graf
2019-08-16 10:23 ` Steven Price
2019-08-16 10:23 ` Steven Price
2019-08-16 10:23 ` Steven Price
2020-07-21 3:26 ` zhukeqian
2020-07-21 3:26 ` zhukeqian
2020-07-21 3:26 ` zhukeqian
2020-07-27 10:48 ` Steven Price
2020-07-27 10:48 ` Steven Price
2020-07-27 10:48 ` Steven Price
2020-07-29 2:57 ` zhukeqian
2020-07-29 2:57 ` zhukeqian
2020-07-29 2:57 ` zhukeqian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190803190522.5fec8f7d@why \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.