From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:09:51 +0530 Message-ID: <51FFB937.6050003__21089.3194810071$1375713256$gmane$org@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <51F0ED31.3040200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130731062440.GK28372@redhat.com> <51FA1087.9080908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> <20130805094603.GA29303@gmail.com> <20130805095901.GL2258@redhat.com> <20130805135222.GA32429@gmail.com> <1952910281.9619371.1375711538505.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1952910281.9619371.1375711538505.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Paolo Bonzini , Gleb Natapov Cc: jeremy@goop.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, Ingo Molnar , stefano stabellini , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com, konrad wilk , ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi kivity , tglx@linutronix.de, chegu vinod , gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa vaddagiri , attilio rao , torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 08/05/2013 07:35 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a >>>> separate branch because it changes Xen as well? >>> >>> It changes KVM host and guest side, XEN and common x86 spinlock code. I >>> think it would be best to merge common x86 spinlock bits and guest side >>> KVM/XEN bits through tip tree and host KVM part will go through KVM >>> tree. If this is OK with you, Ingo, and XEN folks Raghavendra can send >>> two separate patch series one for the tip and one for KVM host side. >> >> Sure, that's fine - if the initial series works fine in isolation as well >> (i.e. won't break anything). > > It would be a big problem if it didn't! Raghavendra, please send the > two separate series as Gleb explained above. > Yes. Sure. The patches have been split in that way. Only thing I am thinking is about KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT, and KVM_HC_KICK_CPU definition in the below hunk, that is needed by guest as well. may be this header file change can be a separate patch so that duplicate can be handled easily during merge? I do testing of all combination after splitting and post. diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h index 06fdbd9..94dc8ca 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #define KVM_FEATURE_ASYNC_PF 4 #define KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME 5 #define KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI 6 +#define KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT 7 diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h index cea2c5c..2841f86 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #define KVM_HC_MMU_OP 2 #define KVM_HC_FEATURES 3 #define KVM_HC_PPC_MAP_MAGIC_PAGE 4 +#define KVM_HC_KICK_CPU 5