From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/11] kvm/x86: remove kvm memblock dependency References: <20180621212518.19914-1-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <20180621212518.19914-5-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <52117b6e-cbdc-8583-494b-5e8e5d6d4265@redhat.com> <585b3646-5515-240a-db57-406d6c311a43@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <9529e874-6fd3-81d8-0a50-bf2efea6c113@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:09:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Pavel Tatashin , tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Steven Sistare , Daniel Jordan , linux@armlinux.org.uk, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Heiko Carstens , John Stultz , sboyd@codeaurora.org, x86@kernel.org, LKML , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, peterz@infradead.org, prarit@redhat.com, feng.tang@intel.com, Petr Mladek , gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/07/2018 17:03, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > I think using __initdata during init_hypervisor_platform() + > allocating during x86_init.hyper.guest_late_init() is a good approach. > My only concern, it would mean we need to init/uinit/init clock for > boot cpu. Does it mean the clock continuity is preserved during the > transition? I believe so, but needs to be verified. Yes, it's the same as any other pvclock update. Paolo