On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:53:14PM +0000, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 01/14/2013 07:50 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> > FWIW, KVM only needs this code for handling complex MMIO instructions, which >> > aren't even generated by recent guest kernels. I'm inclined to suggest removing >> > this emulation code from KVM entirely given that it's likely to bitrot as >> > it is executed less and less often. >> >> That'd mean that you heavily limit what type of guests you're executing, >> which I don't think is a good idea. > > To be honest, I don't think we know whether that's true or not. How many > guests out there do writeback accesses to MMIO devices? Even on older > Linux guests, it was dependent on how GCC felt. I don't think bitrot'ing is a valid argument: the code doesn't depend on any other implementation state that's likely to change and break this code (the instruction encoding is not exactly going to change). And we should simply finish the selftest code to test this stuff (which should be finished if the code is unified or not, and is on my todo list). > > I see where you're coming from, I just don't think we can quantify it either > way outside of Linux. > FWIW, I know of at least a couple of companies wanting to use KVM for running non-Linux guests as well. But, however a shame, I can more easily maintain this single patch out-of-tree, so I'm willing to drop this logic for now if it gets things moving. -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
