[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c57dc32ee6ef31854cac372fde8dc097aa2dab40.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 18:05:40 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Durrant <paul@....org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: x86: Use fast path for Xen timer delivery
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 10:00 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> > case KVM_XEN_VCPU_ATTR_TYPE_TIMER:
> > + /*
> > + * Ensure a consistent snapshot of state is captured, with a
> > + * timer either being pending, or the event channel delivered
> > + * to the corresponding bit in the shared_info. Not still
> > + * lurking in the timer_pending flag for deferred delivery.
> > + * Purely as an optimisation, if the timer_expires field is
> > + * zero, that means the timer isn't active (or even in the
> > + * timer_pending flag) and there is no need to cancel it.
> > + */
>
> Ah, kvm_xen_start_timer() zeros timer_pending.
>
> Given that, shouldn't it be impossible for xen_timer_callback() to observe a
> non-zero timer_pending value? E.g. couldn't this code WARN?
>
> if (atomic_read(&vcpu->arch.xen.timer_pending))
> return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
>
> Obviously not a blocker for this patch, I'm mostly just curious to know if I'm
> missing something.
Yes, I believe that is true.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists