[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cx8wQCcsaMgUUMxtBvW5OTzE6cq2t4TcOr-9xXXHgsMow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:17:54 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <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
2017-06-28 22:11 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>:
>
>
> On 28/06/2017 16:09, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Do you mean I should save nested_apf_token by GET_VCPU_EVENTS and
>> restore it by SET_VCPU_EVENTS? I utilize the place of "u8 pad" in
>> kvm_vcpu_events to hold nested_apf, however nested_apf_token is
>> unsigned long.
>
> If for now we can leave out the GET/SET_VCPU_EVENTS changes, that would
> be best. nested_apf and nested_apf_token should be migrated together
> with the rest of the nested virt state.
Radim explains why we at least needs nested_apf here:
> nested_apf is not #PF: if we didn't pass nested_apf, then the exception would be injected as #PF to L2 after migration.
Do you mean we can ignore it here and depends on Jim's patches to
completely handle it?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists