[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] x86/hvm: introduce config option for ACPI PM timer
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Sergiy Kibrik <sergiy_kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:36:41 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=epam.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=epam.com; dkim=pass header.d=epam.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=DASaRIAJVrZrvn/Z6uAd7V1+6ZMQnN/Vqe9U0sm36n8=; b=pWcGrtUAL+GZ6YbegfOPun02xHGFy1ECqzT62HHvUjauytHsadx9wZE+9mj+R0ipO98Pk0aNFlSNK6Wj6LY6pSkSl8ROs9WTgQybq8/pwAOMKYsgW1QoPx+vOHxoHlVuC097u4LF2Zze61bW9txcZrLRZCwGInT9AWF8r1/FImkTWLY4qhri5RoCmK7Q58n7JnphIoTGCySDe7Dfk74nHaEuU1Uafu/cFJIWQHVUqSNcLG/rni2ig1ga0lSUgAsPi0iW2jj/fCGA5FPXMvNu1BI1MyJWXzqBvCgHq04qNf3xO2IO0OuFhVW8uBv6LmBKVOjeQi1KqfwL4fQ9R+rCeA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=rCbVUUgmeC+pEHkekeydAR2gNUUjPhTM3ckQ92l8F4acIXcHeAI+9BDDDVFvXYdBfwq6jTQ221GFKk6YDSCaudERYH4Em6aDnyYeeOctN/4nCm6ntpHhlI14ROVh8s6IvnJ9MXRXv3/k0cOamiMrXIo6S6EiYJICqeA2IkqeiFezifbw2jXieQ+7qZbgdflPAqvfYbgTh1XBg4XAOsnQrzAHy4r9C2ERWFxqmVpQ3IwH9Asy0y5xvHS2JjHSLlEwZoeHPgE0Yatdq3tZesUf/vZ8T9WeXrm/ptloYWkX/98k7u35RZeCzB8eFtV7xxw3KFabTCAgptC1LQlaTC7qfQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=epam.com;
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:36:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
11.11.24 14:05, Jan Beulich:
[..]>>> What exactly was it that Roger suggested? I don't think it was
what the patch
does overall, but just _how_ it is being done? That makes quite a bit of a
difference, as the former could be read as kind of an implicit ack to what is
being done here (and also in the other patch). Issue is: I remain unconvinced
that this conditionalizing is actually something we really want/need.
about a half of this patch is what Roger suggested. These changes were
in a separate patch, which Roger suggested to be merged into other
patches. What tag should be put in this case then?
The tag itself is fine, but could do with clarifying by way of attaching
"# <brief>", like we also permit for R-b and A-b. Alternatively a post-
commit-message remark would help during review (but notably not once the
change would have been committed, e.g. for archaeologists).
can the tag look like the following?:
Suggested-by: Name <email> # domain.h,domain.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -144,6 +144,19 @@ config INTEL_VMX
If your system includes a processor with Intel VT-x support, say Y.
If in doubt, say Y.
+menu "Emulated HVM devices support"
+ visible if EXPERT
+ depends on HVM
+
+config X86_HVM_PMTIMER
+ bool "ACPI PM timer emulation support"
+ default y
+ help
+ Build pmtimer driver that emulates ACPI PM timer for HVM/PVH guests.
Does this really affect PVH guests? Isn't the whole point of the change
that in a PVH-only environment this wouldn't be needed in Xen?
PVH guest may (depending on its configuration) still use PM timer, so
I'd say the point is in a PVH-only environment this driver becomes optional.
Hmm, the way I look at emulation_flags_ok() it doesn't look to permit this
as optional. The PVH case is "emflags == X86_EMU_LAPIC".
I see, will drop PVH mentioning then
-Sergiy
|
