Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest | From | Boris Ostrovsky <> | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:17:56 -0500 |
| |
On 01/27/2016 10:09 AM, David Vrabel wrote: > On 27/01/16 15:06, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 01/27/2016 09:50 AM, David Vrabel wrote: >>> On 27/01/16 14:42, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:54:56PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> On Jan 26, 2016 6:16 PM, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> You go: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> hvmlite_start_xen() --> >>>>>>> HVM stub >>>>>>> startup_64() | (startup_32() >>>>>> Hrm, does HVMlite work well with load_ucode_bsp(), note the patches to >>>>>> rebrand pv_enabled() to pv_legacy() or whatever, this PV type will not >>>>>> be legacy or crap / old, so we'd need a way to catch it if we should >>>>>> not use that code for this PV type. This begs the question, are you >>>>>> also sure other callers in startup_32() or startup_64() might be OK as >>>>>> well where previously guarded with pv_enabled() ? >>>>> Actually this call can't be used, and if early code used it prior to >>>>> setup_arch() it'd be a bug as its only properly set until later. >>>>> Vetting >>>>> for correctness of all code call is still required though and >>>>> perhaps we do >>>>> need something to catch now this PV type on early code such as this >>>>> one if >>>>> we don't want it. From what I've gathered before on other bsp ucode we >>>>> don't want ucode loaded for PV guest types through these mechanisms. >>>> It may help to not think of PVH/hvmlite as PV. It really is HVM with >>>> a lot >>>> of emulated devices removed. >>>> >>>> How does early microcode work on EFI? Does the EFI stub code have an >>>> early >>>> microcode loading code ? >>> Surely the interesting comparison here is how is (early) microcode >>> loading disabled in KVM guests? We should use the same mechanism for > ^^^^^^^^ >>> HVMlite guests. >> >> Why would we ever want to have a guest load microcode during boot? I can >> see how a (privileged) guest may want to load microcode from a shell >> (via microcode driver). > I think you missed a word when you read my reply.
Yes, I missed it ;-)
Why not continue relying on paravirt_enabled()? We are going to keep this in some form for HVMlite.
-boris
| |