Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > /* >> > > @@ -624,6 +625,7 @@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void) >> > > kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) { >> > > pv_ops.mmu.flush_tlb_others = kvm_flush_tlb_others; >> > > pv_ops.mmu.tlb_remove_table = tlb_remove_table; >> > > + pr_info("KVM setup pv remote TLB flush\n"); >> > > } >> > > > > I am more concerned about printing the "KVM setup pv remote TLB flush" message, > not only when KVM pv is used, but pv TLB flush is not going to be used, but > also when the system is not even paravirtualized. Huh? In Wanpeng's patch this print is under if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_TLB_FLUSH) && !kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) && kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) and if you mean another patch we descussed before which was adding (!kvm_para_available() || nopv) check than it's still needed. Or, alternatively, we can make kvm_para_has_feature() check for that. -- Vitaly