From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABBFC11D05 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37382206E2 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:32:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37382206E2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE9C4AED7; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:26 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quES-x1xAfFZ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691344AEDA; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BF74AED3 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:23 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ZdTShZ0yHXb for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768094AED2 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1270131B; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:32:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.196.37] (e121345-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.37]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4CB43F703; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:32:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Removing support for 32bit KVM/arm host To: Marc Zyngier , Marek Szyprowski References: <20200210141324.21090-1-maz@kernel.org> <621a0a92-6432-6c3e-cb69-0b601764fa69@samsung.com> <43446bd5e884ae92f243799cbe748871@kernel.org> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:32:18 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <43446bd5e884ae92f243799cbe748871@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-GB Cc: Russell King , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Paolo Bonzini , Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On 20/02/2020 1:15 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 2020-02-20 12:44, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> On 10.02.2020 15:13, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> KVM/arm was merged just over 7 years ago, and has lived a very quiet >>> life so far. It mostly works if you're prepared to deal with its >>> limitations, it has been a good prototype for the arm64 version, >>> but it suffers a few problems: >>> >>> - It is incomplete (no debug support, no PMU) >>> - It hasn't followed any of the architectural evolutions >>> - It has zero users (I don't count myself here) >>> - It is more and more getting in the way of new arm64 developments >> >> That is a bit sad information. Mainline Exynos finally got everything >> that was needed to run it on the quite popular Samsung Exynos5422-based >> Odroid XU4/HC1/MC1 boards. According to the Odroid related forums it is >> being used. We also use it internally at Samsung. > > Something like "too little, too late" springs to mind, but let's be > constructive. Is anyone using it in a production environment, where > they rely on the latest mainline kernel having KVM support? > > The current proposal is to still have KVM support in 5.6, as well as > ongoing support for stable kernels. If that's not enough, can you please > explain your precise use case? Presumably there's no *technical* reason why the stable subset of v7 support couldn't be stripped down and brought back private to arch/arm if somebody really wants and is willing to step up and look after it? Robin. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm