On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:58:29PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >>Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb. > >> > >Good idea. > > > >>>>Ingo, Gleb, > >>>> > >>>> From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are > >>>>pro-pvspinlock. > >>>>Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable > >>>>candidate?. > >>>> > >>>I need to spend more time reviewing it :) The problem with PV interfaces > >>>is that they are easy to add but hard to get rid of if better solution > >>>(HW or otherwise) appears. > >> > >>How so? Just make sure the registration for the PV interface is optional; that > >>is, allow it to fail. A guest that fails the PV setup will either have to try > >>another PV interface or fall back to 'native'. > >> > >We have to carry PV around for live migration purposes. PV interface > >cannot disappear under a running guest. > > > > IIRC, The only requirement was running state of the vcpu to be retained. > This was addressed by > [PATCH RFC V10 13/18] kvm : Fold pv_unhalt flag into GET_MP_STATE > ioctl to aid migration. > > I would have to know more if I missed something here. > I was not talking about the state that has to be migrated, but HV<->guest interface that has to be preserved after migration. -- Gleb. -- 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
