On 10/21/2019 9:09 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 17/10/19 18:05, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/10/19 09:48, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
BTW, could you have a look at the series I sent yesterday to refactor
the vcpu creation flow, which is
On 17/10/19 18:05, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 16/10/19 09:48, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>> BTW, could you have a look at the series I sent yesterday to refactor
>>> the vcpu creation flow, which is inspired partly by this issue. Any
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/10/19 09:48, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > BTW, could you have a look at the series I sent yesterday to refactor
> > the vcpu creation flow, which is inspired partly by this issue. Any
> > comment and suggestion is welcomed since I
On 16/10/19 09:48, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> BTW, could you have a look at the series I sent yesterday to refactor
> the vcpu creation flow, which is inspired partly by this issue. Any
> comment and suggestion is welcomed since I don't want to waste time on
> wrong direction.
Yes, that's the series
On 10/16/2019 3:35 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/10/19 03:52, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
user_fpu could be made percpu too... That would save a bit of memory
for each vCPU. I'm holding on Xiaoyao's patch because a lot of the code
he's touching would go away then.
Sorry, I don't get clear your
On 16/10/19 03:52, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>
>> user_fpu could be made percpu too... That would save a bit of memory
>> for each vCPU. I'm holding on Xiaoyao's patch because a lot of the code
>> he's touching would go away then.
>
> Sorry, I don't get clear your attitude.
> Do you mean the generic
On 10/15/2019 5:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 14/10/19 18:58, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
Xiaoyao Li writes:
They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
and SVM. Make them common functions.
No functional change intended.
Would it rather make sense to move this code
On 15/10/19 16:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> On 15/10/19 12:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
>>> vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
>>> would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > On 15/10/19 12:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
> >> vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
> >>
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 15/10/19 12:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
>> vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
>> would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code and then fill in
>>
On 15/10/19 12:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
> vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
> would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code and then fill in
> vendor-specific details in
Sean Christopherson writes:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Xiaoyao Li writes:
>>
>> > They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
>> > and SVM. Make them common functions.
>> >
>> > No functional change intended.
>>
>> Would it
On 14/10/19 18:58, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Xiaoyao Li writes:
>
>> They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
>> and SVM. Make them common functions.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
> Would it rather make sense to move this code to
>
On 10/15/2019 2:37 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
Xiaoyao Li writes:
They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
and SVM. Make them common functions.
No functional change intended.
Would it rather
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Xiaoyao Li writes:
>
> > They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
> > and SVM. Make them common functions.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
>
> Would it rather make sense to move this code to
Xiaoyao Li writes:
> They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
> and SVM. Make them common functions.
>
> No functional change intended.
Would it rather make sense to move this code to
kvm_arch_vcpu_create()/kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() instead?
>
> Signed-off-by:
They are duplicated codes to create vcpu.arch.{user,guest}_fpu in VMX
and SVM. Make them common functions.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 20 +++-
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 20 +++-
arch/x86/kvm/x86.h |
17 matches
Mail list logo
