From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@amazon.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
xiaoyao.li@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
roypat@amazon.co.uk, xmarcalx@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: async_pf: remove support for KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:53:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6ucl7U79RuBsYJt@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241127172654.1024-2-kalyazin@amazon.com>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
> 3a7c8fafd1b42adea229fd204132f6a2fb3cd2d9 ("x86/kvm: Restrict
> ASYNC_PF to user space") stopped setting KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS in
> Linux guests. While the flag can still be used by legacy guests, the
> mechanism is best effort so KVM is not obliged to use it.
What's the actual motivation to remove it from KVM? I agreed KVM isn't required
to honor KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS from a guest/host ABI perspective, but that
doesn't mean that dropping a feature has no impact. E.g. it's entirely possible
removing this support could negatively affect a workload running on an old kernel.
Looking back at the discussion[*] where Vitaly made this suggestion, I don't see
anything that justifies dropping this code. It costs KVM practically nothing to
maintain this code.
[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241118130403.23184-1-kalyazin@amazon.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-11 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-27 17:26 [PATCH 0/2] KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS Nikita Kalyazin
2024-11-27 17:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: async_pf: remove support for KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS Nikita Kalyazin
2025-02-11 18:53 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-02-17 13:05 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2025-02-18 15:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-18 17:07 ` Nikita Kalyazin
2024-11-27 17:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: async_pf: determine x86 user as cpl == 3 Nikita Kalyazin
2025-02-11 19:12 ` Sean Christopherson
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=Z6ucl7U79RuBsYJt@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kalyazin@amazon.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=roypat@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--cc=xmarcalx@amazon.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).