On 04/11/2017 17:54, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 04/11/2017 01:12, Yi Zhang wrote: >>> >> Adding Ravi, >> >> Does anyone have further comments on current implementation, it is a >> important feature in our next generation chip-set. > > What matters is not the feature, but the use case; without a use case, > there is no point in including code for SPP in KVM. KVM doesn't use > VMFUNC or #VE for example, because they are not necessary. > > SPP may become useful once we have the introspection interface. Or, if > another hypervisor uses it, support for nested SPP may be useful (for > example we support nested VMFUNC and should get nested #VE sooner or > later, even though the features are not used on bare metal). > > Right now, however, supporting SPP does not seem to be particularly > important honestly.
Hi Yi Zhang, are you going to work on nested SPP? I guess that would be most useful way to add SPP support to KVM (and you could also test it with kvm-unit-tests). Thanks, Paolo
