[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <546bb75a-ec00-f748-1f44-2b5299a3d3d7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:54:38 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/6] KVM: x86: interrupt based APF page-ready event
delivery
On 29/04/20 11:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> +
> + Type 1 page (page missing) events are currently always delivered as
> + synthetic #PF exception. Type 2 (page ready) are either delivered
> + by #PF exception (when bit 3 of MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN is clear) or
> + via an APIC interrupt (when bit 3 set). APIC interrupt delivery is
> + controlled by MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF2.
I think we should (in the non-RFC version) block async page faults
completely and only keep APF_HALT unless the guest is using page ready
interrupt delivery.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists