[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSj9mz4F2NDSKaas@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:58:35 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@...el.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] KVM: Use dedicated flag to track if KVM is
handling an NMI from guest
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 05:57:10PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > index 5cedc0e8a5d5..4c5ba4128b38 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > @@ -395,9 +395,10 @@ static inline void kvm_unregister_perf_callbacks(void)
> >
> > DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, current_vcpu);
> >
> > -static inline void kvm_before_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +static inline void kvm_before_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool is_nmi)
> > {
> > __this_cpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.handling_nmi_from_guest, is_nmi);
> >
> > kvm_register_perf_callbacks();
> > }
> > @@ -406,6 +407,7 @@ static inline void kvm_after_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > kvm_unregister_perf_callbacks();
> >
> > + WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.handling_nmi_from_guest, false);
> > __this_cpu_write(current_vcpu, NULL);
> > }
>
> Does this rely on kvm_{,un}register_perf_callback() being a function
> call and thus implying a sequence point to order the stores?
No, I'm just terrible at remembering which macros provide what ordering guarantees,
i.e. I was thinking WRITE_ONCE provided guarantees against compiler reordering.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists