Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194764-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:07:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <291ecb3e791606c3437fc415343eb4a25e531cc3.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240522022827.1690416-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240522022827.1690416-4-seanjc@google.com>
 <8b344a16-b28a-4f75-9c1a-a4edf2aa4a11@intel.com> <Zk7Eu0WS0j6/mmZT@chao-email>
 <c4fa17ca-d361-4cb7-a897-9812571aa75f@intel.com> <Zk/9xMepBqAXEItK@chao-email>
 <e39b652c-ba0e-4c54-971e-8df9a2a5d0be@intel.com> <ZldDUUf_47T7HsAr@google.com>
 <291ecb3e791606c3437fc415343eb4a25e531cc3.camel@intel.com>
Message-ID: <Zle1TrfeJDeXLtLk@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: Add a module param to allow enabling
 virtualization when KVM is loaded
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, May 29, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 08:01 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Enabling virtualization should be entirely transparent to userspace,
> > at least from a functional perspective; if changing how KVM enables virtualization
> > breaks userspace then we likely have bigger problems.
> 
> I am not sure how should I interpret this?
> 
> "having a module param" doesn't necessarily mean "entirely transparent to
> userspace", right? :-)

Ah, sorry, that was unclear.  By "transparent to userspace" I meant the
functionality of userspace VMMs wouldn't be affected if we add (or delete) a
module param.  E.g. QEMU should work exactly the same regardless of when KVM
enables virtualization.

> > Performance is secondary for me, the primary motivation is simplifying the overall
> > KVM code base.  Yes, we _could_ use on_each_cpu() and enable virtualization
> > on-demand for TDX, but as above, it's extra complexity without any meaningful
> > benefit, at least AFAICT.
> 
> Either way works for me.
> 
> I just think using a module param to resolve some problem while there can
> be solution completely in the kernel seems overkill :-)

The module param doesn't solve the problem, e.g. we could solve this entirely
in-kernel simply by having KVM unconditionally enable virtualization during
initialization.  The module param is mostly there to continue playing nice with
out-of-tree hypervisors, and to a lesser extent to give us a "break in case of
fire" knob.