Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754325Ab0DSOum (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:50:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25085 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751824Ab0DSOuk (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:50:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:50:38 -0300 From: Glauber Costa To: Avi Kivity Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] export new cpuid KVM_CAP Message-ID: <20100419145037.GG14158@mothafucka.localdomain> References: <1271356648-5108-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1271356648-5108-2-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1271356648-5108-3-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1271356648-5108-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1271356648-5108-5-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4BCA04D2.1040300@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BCA04D2.1040300@redhat.com> X-ChuckNorris: True User-Agent: Jack Bauer Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1738 Lines: 34 On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:58:26PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/15/2010 09:37 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > >Since we're changing the msrs kvmclock uses, we have to communicate > >that to the guest, through cpuid. We can add a new KVM_CAP to the > >hypervisor, and then patch userspace to recognize it. > > > >And if we ever add a new cpuid bit in the future, we have to do that again, > >which create some complexity and delay in feature adoption. > > > >Instead, what I'm proposing in this patch is a new capability, called > >KVM_CAP_X86_CPUID_FEATURE_LIST, that returns the current feature list > >currently supported by the hypervisor. If we ever want to add or remove > >some feature, we only need to tweak into the HV, leaving userspace untouched. > > > > Hm. We need to update userspace anyway, since we don't like turning > features on unconditionally (it breaks live migration into an older > kernel). Right now, we don't have any mechanism to disable, say, kvmclock cpuid bit at userspace. But let's suppose we have: What's the difference between disabling it in the way it is now, and disabling it with the method I am proposing? All this ioctl say is: "Those are the current supported stuff in this HV". It does not mandate userspace to expose all of this to the guest. It just saves us from the job of creating yet another CAP for every bit we plan on including. If we want to be conservative, we can keep everything but the things we know already disabled, in userspace. -- 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/