[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5218efaceec20920166bd907416d6f88905558d.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:13:07 -0400
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Suravee Suthikulpanit
<suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Allow AVIC's IPI virtualization to be optional
On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 16:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> У пн, 2023-10-02 у 12:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson пише:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > This patch allows AVIC's ICR emulation to be optional and thus allows
> > > to workaround AVIC's errata #1235 by disabling this portion of the feature.
> > >
> > > This is v3 of my patch series 'AVIC bugfixes and workarounds' including
> > > review feedback.
> >
> > Please respond to my idea[*] instead of sending more patches.
>
> Hi,
>
> For the v2 of the patch I was already on the fence if to do it this way or to refactor
> the code, and back when I posted it, I decided still to avoid the refactoring.
>
> However, your idea of rewriting this patch, while it does change less lines of code,
> is even less obvious and consequently required you to write even longer comment to
> justify it which is not a good sign.
>
> In particular I don't want someone to find out later, and in the hard way that sometimes
> real physid table is accessed, and sometimes a fake copy of it is.
>
> So I decided to fix the root cause by not reading the physid table back,
> which made the code cleaner, and even with the workaround the code
> IMHO is still simpler than it was before.
>
> About the added 'vcpu->loaded' variable, I added it also because it is something that is
> long overdue to be added, I remember that in IPIv code there was also a need for this,
> and probalby more places in KVM can be refactored to take advantage of it,
> instead of various hacks.
>
> I did adopt your idea of using 'enable_ipiv', although I am still not 100% sure that this
> is more readable than 'avic_zen2_workaround'.
Hi!
Sean, can you take another look at this patch series?
Thanks in advance,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
> > I'm not opposed to
> > a different approach, but we need to have an actual discussion around the pros and
> > cons, and hopefully come to an agreement. This cover letter doesn't even acknowledge
> > that there is an alternative proposal, let alone justify why the vcpu->loaded
> > approach was taken.
> >
> > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZRYxPNeq1rnp-M0f@google.com
> >
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists