| Message ID | 20201014175342.152712-2-jandryuk@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 34aff14580d1b02971adfd63be994f9c045919aa |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Remove Xen PVH dependency on PCI | expand |
On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote: > @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS > Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead. > > config XEN_PVH > - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest" > + bool "Xen PVH guest support" Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e. isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be used in a PVH Dom0? > def_bool n And is this default still appropriate? Jan
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote: > > @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS > > Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead. > > > > config XEN_PVH > > - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest" > > + bool "Xen PVH guest support" > > Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e. > isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be > used in a PVH Dom0? Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and "Support for running in Xen PVH mode"? > > def_bool n > > And is this default still appropriate? We probably want to flip it on, yes. PVH is the future, isn't it? Regards, Jason
On 15.10.2020 16:59, Jason Andryuk wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote: >>> @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS >>> Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead. >>> >>> config XEN_PVH >>> - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest" >>> + bool "Xen PVH guest support" >> >> Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e. >> isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be >> used in a PVH Dom0? > > Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and > "Support for running in Xen PVH mode"? Yeah, just dropping "guest" would be fine with me. No idea how to reflect that PVH Dom0 isn't supported, yet. Jan
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:02:21PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.10.2020 16:59, Jason Andryuk wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote: > >>> @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS > >>> Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead. > >>> > >>> config XEN_PVH > >>> - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest" > >>> + bool "Xen PVH guest support" > >> > >> Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e. > >> isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be > >> used in a PVH Dom0? > > > > Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and > > "Support for running in Xen PVH mode"? > > Yeah, just dropping "guest" would be fine with me. No idea how > to reflect that PVH Dom0 isn't supported, yet. The fact that it isn't supported by Xen shouldn't be reflected on the Linux configuration, as it's independent. Ie: you could run this Linux kernel on a future version of Xen where PVH dom0 is supported. There's already a warning printed by Xen when booting PVH dom0 about not being a supported mode. Thanks, Roger.
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig b/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig index 218acbd5c7a0..b75007eb4ec4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig @@ -39,16 +39,20 @@ config XEN_DOM0 Support running as a Xen PV Dom0 guest. config XEN_PVHVM - bool "Xen PVHVM guest support" - default y - depends on XEN && PCI && X86_LOCAL_APIC - help - Support running as a Xen PVHVM guest. + def_bool y + depends on XEN && X86_LOCAL_APIC config XEN_PVHVM_SMP def_bool y depends on XEN_PVHVM && SMP +config XEN_PVHVM_GUEST + bool "Xen PVHVM guest support" + default y + depends on XEN_PVHVM && PCI + help + Support running as a Xen PVHVM guest. + config XEN_512GB bool "Limit Xen pv-domain memory to 512GB" depends on XEN_PV @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead. config XEN_PVH - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest" + bool "Xen PVH guest support" depends on XEN && XEN_PVHVM && ACPI select PVH def_bool n + help + Support for running as a Xen PVH guest. diff --git a/drivers/xen/Makefile b/drivers/xen/Makefile index babdca808861..c3621b9f4012 100644 --- a/drivers/xen/Makefile +++ b/drivers/xen/Makefile @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_GNTDEV) += xen-gntdev.o obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DEV_ALLOC) += xen-gntalloc.o obj-$(CONFIG_XENFS) += xenfs/ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_SYS_HYPERVISOR) += sys-hypervisor.o -obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVHVM) += platform-pci.o +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVHVM_GUEST) += platform-pci.o obj-$(CONFIG_SWIOTLB_XEN) += swiotlb-xen.o obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_MCE_LOG) += mcelog.o obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_BACKEND) += xen-pciback/
A Xen PVH domain doesn't have a PCI bus or devices, so it doesn't need PCI support built in. Currently, XEN_PVH depends on XEN_PVHVM which depends on PCI. Introduce XEN_PVHVM_GUEST as a toplevel item and change XEN_PVHVM to a hidden variable. This allows XEN_PVH to depend on XEN_PVHVM without PCI while XEN_PVHVM_GUEST depends on PCI. In drivers/xen, compile platform-pci depending on XEN_PVHVM_GUEST since that pulls in the PCI dependency for linking. Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com> --- --- arch/x86/xen/Kconfig | 18 ++++++++++++------ drivers/xen/Makefile | 2 +- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)