From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43FD17C for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:57:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656089870; x=1687625870; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h9unbbnqGQL7IjxvTCwmIkRm1Ll3fd9IcwkzJE10U7I=; b=bsTBGQmeizaqW9vIRm2s33WR7J1vq/z+d7hFuYqbmRk7DlzbHGjv5EBT NT/YSwqRHNYd6r5cx0lck8HkyiosUEFM/of24b+MXBlawqxMw8MKfgcZv i59ydHo6TZ1e1gXaIgo0GfkEuXxH6M+U3dJBHezTJtRqsD97rqjx/4hPN 47LVfHot+kIy7JSxF0WWChvSWILvgQU+xlYT5ftGZ+bKx7sFG6kECPFyX lZ/mBmbuWg3Pk//Q6z2pprjD2XZ66cU7ynX/jRa/+Ad64PQ3U9xNjxAQ8 aNVUAlBcb6L6aJ83HRx9SSU0WIXQbPhg1keAaXPAqDJH7hLG1PD6EWxf3 w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10388"; a="278587737" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,218,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="278587737" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2022 09:57:49 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,218,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="731393321" Received: from mdedeogl-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.126.186]) ([10.209.126.186]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2022 09:57:48 -0700 Message-ID: <5af19000-4482-7eb9-f158-0a461891f087@intel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:57:14 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Content-Language: en-US To: Peter Gonda , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com, khalid.elmously@canonical.com, philip.cox@canonical.com, the arch/x86 maintainers , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, LKML References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, is your enter key broken? You seem to be typing all your text in a single unreadable paragraph. On 6/24/22 09:37, Peter Gonda wrote: > if a customer incorrectly labels their image it may fail to boot.. You're saying that firmware basically has two choices: 1. Accept all the memory up front and boot slowly, but reliably 2. Use thus "unaccepted memory" mechanism, boot fast, but risk that the VM loses a bunch of memory. If the guest can't even boot because of a lack of memory, then the pre-accepted chunk is probably too small in the first place. If the customer screws up, they lose a bunch of the RAM they paid for. That seems like a rather self-correcting problem to me.