From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org,
rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_core: Accept unaccepted kexec destination addresses
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:44:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cyjq7rjo.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tpbcun3d4wrnbtsvx3b3hjpdl47f2zuxvx6zqsjoelazdt3eyv@kgqnedtcejta> (Kirill A. Shutemov's message of "Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:06:15 +0300")
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> writes:
> Waiting minutes to get VM booted to shell is not feasible for most
> deployments. Lazy is sane default to me.
Huh?
Unless my guesses about what is happening are wrong lazy is hiding
a serious implementation deficiency. From all hardware I have seen
taking minutes is absolutely ridiculous.
Does writing to all of memory at full speed take minutes? How can such
a system be functional?
If you don't actually have to write to the pages and it is just some
accounting function it is even more ridiculous.
I had previously thought that accept_memory was the firmware call.
Now that I see that it is just a wrapper for some hardware specific
calls I am even more perplexed.
Quite honestly what this looks like to me is that someone failed to
enable write-combining or write-back caching when writing to memory
when initializing the protected memory. With the result that everything
is moving dog slow, and people are introducing complexity left and write
to avoid that bad implementation.
Can someone please explain to me why this accept_memory stuff has to be
slow, why it has to take minutes to do it's job.
I would much rather spend my time figuring out how to make accept_memory
run at a reasonable speed than to litter the kernel with more of this
nonsense.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-23 15:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-21 3:45 [PATCH] kexec_core: Accept unaccepted kexec destination addresses Yan Zhao
2024-10-21 14:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2024-10-22 3:12 ` Yan Zhao
2024-10-22 12:06 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-10-23 15:44 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2024-10-24 0:15 ` Yan Zhao
2024-10-24 0:26 ` Yan Zhao
2024-11-26 11:38 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-27 10:01 ` Yan Zhao
2024-11-28 15:19 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-29 5:52 ` Yan Zhao
2024-12-02 14:17 ` Baoquan He
2024-12-03 10:06 ` Yan Zhao
2024-12-03 10:30 ` Baoquan He
2024-12-04 9:19 ` Yan Zhao
2024-10-25 13:56 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-11-04 8:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-11-08 12:29 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=87cyjq7rjo.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.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