[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86ce6b06-baa7-51a2-b3ea-142547b7f3c3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:13:39 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/22] x86/kvm: Don't call kvm_spurious_fault() from
.fixup
On 18/07/19 16:12, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:18:50PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 18/07/19 15:16, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>> This has a side effect of adding a jump in a generally hot path, but
>>>> let's hope that the speculation gods for once help us.
>>> Any reason not to take the same approach as vmx_vmenter() and ud2 directly
>>> from fixup? I've never found kvm_spurious_fault() to be all that helpful,
>>> IMO it's a win win. :-)
>>
>> Honestly I've never seen a backtrace from here but I would rather not
>> regret this when a customer encounters it...
>
> In theory, changing the "call kvm_spurious_fault" to ud2 should be fine.
> It should be tested, of course.
>
> I would defer to Sean to make the patch on top of mine :-)
>
Yes, this can be done easily on top.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists