[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyDgPv==-H55GDuzXzQcioaw5xb-2skUbzDfyODaUVwimA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:49:23 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: isaku.yamahata@...el.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 16/59] KVM: x86: Add per-VM flag to disable direct
IRQ injection
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM <isaku.yamahata@...el.com> wrote:
> static int dm_request_for_irq_injection(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> return vcpu->run->request_interrupt_window &&
> + !vcpu->kvm->arch.irq_injection_disallowed &&
> likely(!pic_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm));
> }
Just judged superficially by the function names, it seems that the
logic is better to be put in kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr() or some deeper
function nested in kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr().
The function name will tell us that the interrupt is not injected
because the CPU doesn't accept it. And it will also have an effect
that vcpu->run->ready_for_interrupt_injection will always be false
which I think is better to have for TDX.
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists