From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Modules cleanup and unification
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 05:13:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTGvE9o9e0qCz9xA@yekko> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875yvjujxy.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3208 bytes --]
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:32:41AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:33:52PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> >> This series merges our three kvm modules kvm.ko, kvm-hv.ko and
> >> kvm-pr.ko into one kvm.ko module.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. People who aren't on BookS
> > servers don't want - and can't use - kvm-hv. Almost nobody wants
> > kvm-pr. It's also kind of inconsistent with x86, which has the
> > separate AMD and Intel modules.
>
> But this is not altering the ability of having only kvm-hv or only
> kvm-pr. I'm taking the Kconfig options that used to produce separate
> modules and using them to select which code gets built into the one
> kvm.ko module.
>
> Currently:
>
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_64=m <-- produces kvm.ko
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_64_HV=m <-- produces kvm-hv.ko
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_64_PR=m <-- produces kvm-pr.ko
>
> I'm making it so we now have one kvm.ko everywhere, but there is still:
>
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_64=m <-- produces kvm.ko
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE=y <-- includes HV in kvm.ko
> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_PR_POSSIBLE=y <-- includes PR in kvm.ko
>
> In other words, if you are going to have at least two modules loaded at
> all times (kvm + kvm-hv or kvm + kvm-pr), why not put all that into one
> module? No one needs to build code they are not going to use, this is
> not changing.
Ah.. I see, you're removing the runtime switch from one to the other
at the same time as having just a single one loaded, but leaving the
ability to compile time switch. And compile time is arguably good
enough for the cases I've described.
Ok, I see your point.
I still think it's conceptually not ideal, but the practical benefit
is more important. Objection withdrawn.
> About consistency with x86, this situation is not analogous because we
> need to be able to load both modules at the same time, which means
> kvm.ko needs to stick around when one module goes away in case we want
> to load the other module. The KVM common code states that it expects to
> have at most one implementation:
>
> /*
> * kvm_arch_init makes sure there's at most one caller
> * for architectures that support multiple implementations,
> * like intel and amd on x86.
> (...)
>
> which is not true in our case due to this requirement of having two
> separate modules loading independently.
>
> (tangent) We are already quite different from other architectures since
> we're not making use of kvm_arch_init and some other KVM hooks, such as
> kvm_arch_check_processor_compat. So while other archs have their init
> dispatched by kvm common code, our init and cleanup happens
> independently in the ppc-specific modules, which obviously works but is
> needlessly different and has subtleties in the ordering of operations
> wrt. the kvm common code. (tangent)
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-03 5:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-01 17:33 [PATCH 0/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Modules cleanup and unification Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-01 17:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Check return value of kvmppc_radix_init Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-01 17:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Delay setting of kvm ops Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-01 17:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Free allocated memory if module init fails Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-01 17:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Unify kvm-hv and kvm-pr modules Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-01 17:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Stop exporting non-builtin symbols Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-02 1:28 ` [PATCH 0/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Modules cleanup and unification David Gibson
2021-09-02 14:32 ` Fabiano Rosas
2021-09-03 5:13 ` David Gibson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YTGvE9o9e0qCz9xA@yekko \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=farosas@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).