> > What I don't understand is why we can't move the init and tear-down
> > functions into kvm_arch_hardware_enable/disable(). They seem to be for
> > precisely what you are implementing, with the only difference being the
> > time that they are called.
>
> I don't know, neither. I just followed the discussions between Marc and Geoff,
> and their conclusion. I guessed that *refactoring* might be more complicated than
> expected.
>
> FYI, I gave a quick try to kvm_arch_hardware_enable() approach by removing
> cpu_init_hyp_mode() from init_hyp_mode() and putting it into kvm_arch_hardware_enable(),
> and it seems to work, at least, in my environment:
> boot => start a kvm guest => kexec reboot => start a kvm guest
That sounds pretty convincing to me, assuming you wired the teardown
intp kvm_arch_hardware_disable() ?
> > Either I'm missing something, or we can simply implement the existing
> > hooks. I assume I'm missing something.
>
> Marc, Geoff, any comments?
>
>
> >>>> +static struct notifier_block kvm_reboot_nb = {
> >>>> + .notifier_call = kvm_reboot_notify,
> >>>> + .next = NULL,
> >>>> + .priority = 0, /* FIXME */
> >>>
> >>> It would be helpful for the comment to explain why this is wrong, and
> >>> what needs fixing.
> >>
> >> Thank for reminding me of this.
> >>
> >> *priority* enforces a calling order of registered hook functions.
> >> If some hook returns NOTIFY_STOP_MASK, subsequent hooks won't be called.
> >> (Nevertheless, reboot sequence will go ahead. See kernel_restart_prepare()/
> >> notifier_call_chain().)
> >>
> >> So we should make sure that kvm_reboot_notify() be called
> >> 1) after any hook functions which may depend on kvm, and
> >
> > Which hooks depend on KVM?
>
> I think I answered this question below:
> >> But how can we guarantee this and determine a priority of kvm_reboot_notify()?
> >> Looking into all the occurrences of register_reboot_notifier(),
> >> 1) => nothing
> >> 2) => virt/kvm/kvm_main.c (priority: 0)
> >> 3) => drivers/cpufreq/s32416-cpufreq.c (priority: 0)
> >> drivers/cpufreq/s5pv210-cpufreq.c (priority: 0)
> >>
> >> So a priority higher than zero might be safe and better, but exactly what?
> >> Some hooks use "INT_MAX."
I can't see anything listed which has a dependency on KVM.
The KVM notifier would be superseded by
kvm_arch_hardware_{disable,enable}, and the cpufreq instances don't seem
to have any relationship to KVM.
Other architectures use kvm_arch_hardware_{enable,disable}(), so I
imagine the core KVM code has no problem with the ordering of these.
Mark.
