[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f3a51aef-ab0a-b29f-dfa0-5490518d6fcc@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:48:38 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] KVM: async_pf: Force a nested vmexit if the
injected #PF is async_pf
On 28/06/2017 15:38, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> Radim, Wanpeng,
>>
>> the patch is nice now but I'm still not 100% sure about the live
>> migration part. Why do we need to pass nested_apf to userspace, but not
>> nested_apf_token?
>
> We do not need it for migration, but unavailable nested_apf_token
> already breaks checkpoint & restore from userspace ... I think the
> cleanest way would be to add a new paravirtual event for nested_apf.
> (Or just keep delaying the apf.)
Indeed. With Jim's plans to migrate nested virt data, I was wondering
if nested_apf and nested_apf_token would be better placed in that ioctl,
rather than GET/SET_VCPU_EVENTS.
Nested-virt migration is broken anyway until we have Jim's patches, so
there's little point in migrating nested_apf only. Do you agree?
> Migration does a "async-pf-broadcast" while setting the async-pf MSR on
> destination, which resumes all async-pf waiters.
> Userspace actually has to drop the async-pf event on migration, because
> the destination has invalid nested_apf_token. (It's a horrible design.)
Yes, this was my question essentially. I would still migrate
nested_apf_token (as part of nested virt state), and then clear it in
KVM when doing the async-pf broadcast.
Paolo
> nested_apf is not #PF: if we didn't pass nested_apf, then the exception
> would be injected as #PF to L2 after migration. (Local KVM could
> remember that the #PF is nested_apf and do some ugly hacks.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists