[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200505185935.GC7155@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 14:59:35 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, 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 6/6] KVM: x86: Switch KVM guest to using interrupts
for page ready APF delivery
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:53:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/04/20 11:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > +
> > + if (__this_cpu_read(apf_reason.enabled)) {
> > + reason = __this_cpu_read(apf_reason.reason);
> > + if (reason == KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY) {
> > + token = __this_cpu_read(apf_reason.token);
> > + /*
> > + * Make sure we read 'token' before we reset
> > + * 'reason' or it can get lost.
> > + */
> > + mb();
> > + __this_cpu_write(apf_reason.reason, 0);
> > + kvm_async_pf_task_wake(token);
> > + }
>
> If tokens cannot be zero, could we avoid using reason for the page ready
> interrupt (and ultimately retire "reason" completely)?
If we are planning to report errors using this interface, then retaining
KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY makes sense because we can then introduce another
state say KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_ERROR.
Thanks
Vivek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists