Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1646727529-11774-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <6e57aad6-1322-8a3d-6dfa-ff010a61a9a9@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e57aad6-1322-8a3d-6dfa-ff010a61a9a9@redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 09:36:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cw9m81HQN-kFYSiaoXOaaJHEQS77D-wwVv=hzmkOLpZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm: Don't waste kvmclock memory if there is nopv parameter
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 20:13, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/8/22 09:18, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> >
> > When the "nopv" command line parameter is used, it should not waste
> > memory for kvmclock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
> > index c5caa73..16333ba 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
> > @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static void __init kvmclock_init_mem(void)
> >
> >   static int __init kvm_setup_vsyscall_timeinfo(void)
> >   {
> > -     if (!kvm_para_available() || !kvmclock)
> > +     if (!kvm_para_available() || !kvmclock || nopv)
> >               return 0;
> >
> >       kvmclock_init_mem();
>
> Perhaps instead !kvm_para_available() && nopv should clear the kvmclock
> variable?

Do you mean if (!kvm_para_available() && nopv) return 0? I
misunderstand why they are the same. :)

    Wanpeng