[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170321204143-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:45:46 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@...il.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 untested] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:16:32PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:22:18PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> > index d1efe2c..18e53bc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> > @@ -1198,8 +1198,6 @@ static void init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> > set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_CLGI);
> > set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_SKINIT);
> > set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_WBINVD);
> > - set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_MONITOR);
> > - set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_MWAIT);
>
> Why do you remove the intercepts for AMD? The new kvm_mwait_in_guest()
> function will always return false on AMD anyway,
I think that's a bug and I should fix it to return true there.
> and on Intel you re-add
> the intercepts for !kvm_mwait_in_guest().
>
>
> Joerg
Does AMD need some work-around similar to CPUID5_ECX_INTERRUPT_BREAK?
That's why we have kvm_mwait_in_guest ...
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists