On 02.05.2018 10:03, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 02.05.2018 09:48, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Wed, 2 May 2018 09:16:50 +0200 >> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/2018 12:01 AM, Marc Orr wrote: >>>> Actually, I don't follow. Radim said: >>>> "I'd prefer to have one patch that switches all architectures to vzalloc >>>> (this patch + hunk for x86)..." >>>> >>>> But Christian said vzalloc doesn't work for s390. >>> >>> I said >>> --- >>> I dont think this is necessarily safe. This contains kvm_arch and you >>> would need to verify that no architecture has data in struct kvm_arch >>> that must be allocated with kmalloc. Fo example on s390 kernel virtual >>> == kernel real for kmalloc so some driver might rely on that. >>> FWIW, it looks like the s390 struct kvm_arch is fine, but this requires >>> more review I guess. >>> --- >>> >>> so my statement was more on the "it could break" side. >>> Right now it looks like that most critical data structure (crypto control >>> block, stfle and others) are already pointers and being allocated >>> separately but this needs some review. >>> >>> David, Conny, Janosch, can you please also check struct kvm_arch on z for >>> data structures that are passed directly to the hardware? Those will break >>> if we switch to vzalloc. >> >> From what I can see, the structures sensitive to kzalloc vs. vzalloc >> are all in separately allocated blocks. > > Yes, that's also what I can see. > Agreed, everything seems to be manually allocated (SCA, cbrlo, vsie pages), lies in kvm_run (sdnx, riccb) or lies on the sie_page (sie_block, itdb, crycb, gisa, fac_list). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
