[kvmarm] [PATCH v5 13/14] KVM: ARM: Handle I/O aborts
c.dall at virtualopensystems.com
Mon Jan 14 14:12:49 EST 2013
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:53:14PM +0000, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 01/14/2013 07:50 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > FWIW, KVM only needs this code for handling complex MMIO instructions, which
>> > aren't even generated by recent guest kernels. I'm inclined to suggest removing
>> > this emulation code from KVM entirely given that it's likely to bitrot as
>> > it is executed less and less often.
>> That'd mean that you heavily limit what type of guests you're executing,
>> which I don't think is a good idea.
> To be honest, I don't think we know whether that's true or not. How many
> guests out there do writeback accesses to MMIO devices? Even on older
> Linux guests, it was dependent on how GCC felt.
I don't think bitrot'ing is a valid argument: the code doesn't depend
on any other implementation state that's likely to change and break
this code (the instruction encoding is not exactly going to change).
And we should simply finish the selftest code to test this stuff
(which should be finished if the code is unified or not, and is on my
> I see where you're coming from, I just don't think we can quantify it either
> way outside of Linux.
FWIW, I know of at least a couple of companies wanting to use KVM for
running non-Linux guests as well.
But, however a shame, I can more easily maintain this single patch
out-of-tree, so I'm willing to drop this logic for now if it gets
More information about the linux-arm-kernel