Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <abed8069-220a-ee32-b4fa-3cff935b539c@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 08:59:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     borntraeger@de.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
        david@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, scgl@linux.ibm.com,
        mimu@linux.ibm.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com
References: <20220628135619.32410-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy for
 reboot
In-Reply-To: <20220628135619.32410-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/28/22 15:56, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> Previously, when a protected VM was rebooted or when it was shut down,
> its memory was made unprotected, and then the protected VM itself was
> destroyed. Looping over the whole address space can take some time,
> considering the overhead of the various Ultravisor Calls (UVCs). This
> means that a reboot or a shutdown would take a potentially long amount
> of time, depending on the amount of used memory.
> 
> This patchseries implements a deferred destroy mechanism for protected
> guests. When a protected guest is destroyed, its memory can be cleared
> in background, allowing the guest to restart or terminate significantly
> faster than before.
> 

Patches 1-12 have spent a considerable amount of time in the CI and I'd 
like to queue them to be able to focus on the rest of the series.

Patch 9 will need two small fixups since there are two conflicts where a 
line was introduced before your addition of the include and the struct 
kvm_s390_pv mmu_notifier member. I.e. it's more of a patch history 
problem than a real conflict.

I'd fix that up when queuing if you're ok with it?