On Tue, Oct 05, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:16 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, Robert Hoo wrote: > > > On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 15:11 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > You also said, "This is quite the complicated mess for > > > something I'm guessing no one actually cares about. At what point do > > > we chalk this up as a virtualization hole and sweep it under the rug?" > > > -- I couldn't agree more. > > > > ... > > > > > So, Sean, can you help converge our discussion and settle next step? > > > > Any objection to simply keeping KVM's current behavior, i.e. sweeping this under > > the proverbial rug? > > Adding 8 KiB per vCPU seems like no big deal to me, but, on the other > hand, Paolo recently argued that slightly less than 1 KiB per vCPU was > unreasonable for VM-exit statistics, so maybe I've got a warped > perspective. I'm all for pedantic adherence to the specification, but > I have to admit that no actual hypervisor is likely to care (or ever > will). It's not just the memory, it's also the complexity, e.g. to get VMCS shadowing working correctly, both now and in the future.
