[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32d432f7-bbdf-a240-7ee9-303d019d8d1a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:38:44 +0800
From: "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Derek Yerger <derek@....llc>,
kernel@...dan.com, Thomas Lambertz <mail@...maslambertz.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD bug fixes
On 1/17/2020 2:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> TIF_FPU_NEED_LOAD can be set any time
> control is transferred out of KVM, e.g. via IRQ->softirq, not just when
> KVM is preempted.
Hi Sean,
Is this just because kernel_fpu_begin() is called during softirq? I saw
the dump trace in 3/4 message, but didn't find out clue.
Could I ask where kernel_fpu_begin() is called? Or is this just a
"possible" thing?
Because I just want to make sure that, kvm can use this flag to cover
all preempt/softirq/(other?) cases?
Thanks,
Jing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists