[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e4bd2c3-50c4-b23e-2924-728a37a5f157@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:49:24 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"rkagan@...tuozzo.com" <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
"graf@...zon.com" <graf@...zon.com>,
"jschoenh@...zon.de" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
"karahmed@...zon.de" <karahmed@...zon.de>,
"rimasluk@...zon.com" <rimasluk@...zon.com>,
"Grimm, Jon" <Jon.Grimm@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/17] kvm: i8254: Deactivate APICv when using
in-kernel PIT re-injection mode.
On 04/11/19 19:54, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> I see you point.
>
>> We can work around it by adding a global mask of inhibit reasons that
>> apply to the vendor, and initializing it as soon as possible in vmx.c/svm.c.
>>
>> Then kvm_request_apicv_update can ignore reasons that the vendor doesn't
>> care about.
>
> What about we enhance the pre_update_apivc_exec_ctrl() to also return
> success/fail. In here, the vendor specific code can decide to update
> APICv state or not.
That works for me, too. Something like return false for deactivate and
true for activate.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists