[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW4PR11MB6737F5CD4B75A77D8A231AF5A89A9@MW4PR11MB6737.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:50:01 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"Kang, Shan" <shan.kang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 33/33] KVM: x86/vmx: refactor VMX_DO_EVENT_IRQOFF to
generate FRED stack frames
> > external_interrupt() is always available on x86_64, even when CONFIG_X86_FRED
> > is not defined. I prefer to always call external_interrupt() on x86_64 for IRQ
> > handling, which avoids re-entering noinstr code. how do you think? Too
> > aggressive?
>
> I think it's completely orthogonal to FRED enabling. If you or anyone else wants
> to convert the non-FRED handling to external_interrupt(), then do so after FRED
> lands, or at the very least in a separate patch after enabling FRED in KVM.
That sounds a reasonable plan.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists