KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Kelley (EOSG)
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:57 AM
>> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>; x86@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KY
>> Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang
>> <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Hemminger
>> <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ingo
>> Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>; H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>; Tianyu Lan
>> <Tianyu.Lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper
>> HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible
>>
>> ...
>>>
>> This is a good idea. We should probably do the same with the hypercalls for
>> sending
>> IPIs -- try the simpler version first and move to the more complex _EX
>> version only
>> if necessary.
> I am not sure if this would work correctly. When I was developing the IPI enlightenment,
> what I remember was that the guest is expected to use the API recommended by the Hypervisor.
>
I was under the same impression when I implemented PV TLB flush. Turns
out HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_RECOMMENDED is a misnomer or at least
Windows treats it as HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_AVAILABLE instead using
only when needed.
My guess would be that the situation with IPI is the same. In any case I
can try to implement Hyper-V style PV IPIs for Windows in KVM and we'll
see how Windows uses these hypercalls :-)
--
Vitaly
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
