[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200324181031.GE5998@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:10:31 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: 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, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 34/37] KVM: nVMX: Don't flush TLB on nested VMX
transition
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:20:31PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/03/20 22:28, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Unconditionally skip the TLB flush triggered when reusing a root for a
> > nested transition as nested_vmx_transition_tlb_flush() ensures the TLB
> > is flushed when needed, regardless of whether the MMU can reuse a cached
> > root (or the last root).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
>
> So much for my WARN_ON. :)
Ha, yeah. The double boolean also makes me nervous, but since there are
only two options, it seemed cleaner overall than a single mask-based param,
a ala EMULTYPE.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists