Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763617AbZCYSS7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:18:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755682AbZCYSSu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:18:50 -0400 Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com ([65.115.85.73]:44980 "EHLO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753214AbZCYSSt (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:18:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: move vmware to hypervisor From: Alok Kataria Reply-To: akataria@vmware.com To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput Cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86 maintainers , LKML In-Reply-To: <1238002693.2500.52.camel@ht.satnam> References: <1237281581.7907.2.camel@ht.satnam> <20090317093919.GD6477@elte.hu> <1237283318.7907.9.camel@ht.satnam> <49BFC6CB.9070603@zytor.com> <1237958994.5556.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090325125955.GB516@elte.hu> <1237999971.32497.12.camel@alok-dev1> <1238000840.2500.49.camel@ht.satnam> <1238001853.32497.22.camel@alok-dev1> <1238002693.2500.52.camel@ht.satnam> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: VMware INC. Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:18:47 -0700 Message-Id: <1238005127.32497.38.camel@alok-dev1> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 (2.8.0-40.el5_1.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2484 Lines: 58 On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:38 -0700, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:24 -0700, Alok Kataria wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:07 -0700, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 09:52 -0700, Alok Kataria wrote: > > > > > > > > > > vmware can be considered a CPU here, so i think making the disabling > > > > > also depend on PROCESSOR_SELECT. > > > > > > > > Ingo, this code is not just to be used by VMware, the reason we did this > > > > generically was so that a guest could run unaltered on *any* fully > > > > virtualized hypervisor. > > > > And give that this code is just a boot setup thing, the only thing this > > > > patch saves over here is not running the detection code on native > > > > systems. All the rest of the code is guarded by the > > > > "boot_cpu_data.x86_hyper_vendor" checks anyways. > > > > > > > > I don't really see the point of adding one more config option just for > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please explain what is the point of adding this support all the > > > time if this is useless for 99.9% of cases. IMHO, it should be optional. > > > > First of all, I don't know how did you get to the 99.9% number, though I > > think its not a point worth debating, just like to share some info with > > you. More and more people are adopting virtualization now a days and > > give the trend i don't see just 0.1% people running Linux on virtualized > > hardware. So though its not a common case there is still a large user > > base. > > I am agree with you there is no point for debate. > > If someone need this option, she can enable it and use it. You seem to be missing the point I raised in the previous mail. Its below for your reference. > I am not saying we should not hide this behind a config at all. The > point is there is nothing that we save by adding a new config, so what's > the point at all. If you can give me a solid reason like, say, you save > 1% code space with this config option, or 'n' sec in the boottime, I am > all ears for such an argument. > > So, if there are any tangible benefits with doing this I am ok with it, but your current argument about "Freedom to user" doesn't sound too compelling. -- Alok -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/