From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/29] arm64: KVM: HYP mode world switch implementation Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: <514AF50D.8060206@arm.com> References: <1362455265-24165-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1362455265-24165-17-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <5140DA96.3070403@codeaurora.org> <514A1641.6030709@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Catalin Marinas To: Christopher Covington Return-path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:41556 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754254Ab3CULy5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:54:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <514A1641.6030709@codeaurora.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 20/03/13 20:04, Christopher Covington wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On 03/13/2013 03:59 PM, Christopher Covington wrote: > > [...] > >> Alternatively, you could consider storing the host registers in a >> slimmed-down vcpu structure for hosts, rather than on the stack. I am actively implementing this (I'm turning the vfp_host pointer into a full blown CPU context). It looks promising so far, stay tuned. > One potential argument for storing the host in the same sort of vcpu structure > as the guest rather than on the hypervisor stack is that snapshot and > migration support initially intended for guests might more easily be extended > to work for hosts as well. Not sure I'm following you here. Are you thinking of snapshoting both host and guests, and migrating the whole thing? Ambitious... ;-) M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:54:53 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 16/29] arm64: KVM: HYP mode world switch implementation In-Reply-To: <514A1641.6030709@codeaurora.org> References: <1362455265-24165-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1362455265-24165-17-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <5140DA96.3070403@codeaurora.org> <514A1641.6030709@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <514AF50D.8060206@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/03/13 20:04, Christopher Covington wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On 03/13/2013 03:59 PM, Christopher Covington wrote: > > [...] > >> Alternatively, you could consider storing the host registers in a >> slimmed-down vcpu structure for hosts, rather than on the stack. I am actively implementing this (I'm turning the vfp_host pointer into a full blown CPU context). It looks promising so far, stay tuned. > One potential argument for storing the host in the same sort of vcpu structure > as the guest rather than on the hypervisor stack is that snapshot and > migration support initially intended for guests might more easily be extended > to work for hosts as well. Not sure I'm following you here. Are you thinking of snapshoting both host and guests, and migrating the whole thing? Ambitious... ;-) M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...