[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c30e682-a569-9e91-987d-9e2fc66bb625@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:03:13 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: never clear irr_pending in
kvm_apic_update_apicv
On 12/10/21 13:47, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> If we scan vIRR here and see no bits, and*then* disable AVIC,
> there is a window where the they could legit be turned on without any cpu errata,
> and we will not have irr_pending == true, and thus the following
> KVM_REQ_EVENT will make no difference.
Right.
> Not touching irr_pending and letting just the KVM_REQ_EVENT do the work
> will work too,
Yeah, I think that's preferrable. irr_pending == true is a conservative
setting that works; irr_pending will be evaluated again on the first
call to apic_clear_irr and that's enough.
With that justification, you don't need to reorder the call to
kvm_apic_update_apicv to be after kvm_x86_refresh_apicv_exec_ctrl.
Paolo
and if the avic errata is present, reduce slightly
> the chances of it happening.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists