[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d345b636-792f-4762-8c6c-2a7252294068@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 16:36:29 +0530
From: Sairaj Kodilkar <sarunkod@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, David Woodhouse
<dwmw2@...radead.org>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, Joao
Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/67] KVM: SVM: Delete IRTE link from previous vCPU
irrespective of new routing
On 4/5/2025 1:08 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Delete the IRTE link from the previous vCPU irrespective of the new
> routing state. This is a glorified nop (only the ordering changes), as
> both the "posting" and "remapped" mode paths pre-delete the link.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> index 02b6f0007436..e9ded2488a0b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> @@ -870,6 +870,12 @@ int avic_pi_update_irte(struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd, struct kvm *kvm,
> if (!kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(kvm) || !kvm_arch_has_irq_bypass())
> return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * If the IRQ was affined to a different vCPU, remove the IRTE metadata
> + * from the *previous* vCPU's list.
> + */
> + svm_ir_list_del(irqfd);
> +
> pr_debug("SVM: %s: host_irq=%#x, guest_irq=%#x, set=%#x\n",
> __func__, host_irq, guest_irq, set);
>
> @@ -892,8 +898,6 @@ int avic_pi_update_irte(struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd, struct kvm *kvm,
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(new && memcmp(e, new, sizeof(*new)));
>
> - svm_ir_list_del(irqfd);
> -
> /**
> * Here, we setup with legacy mode in the following cases:
> * 1. When cannot target interrupt to a specific vcpu.
Hi sean,
Why not combine patch 10 and patch 11 ? Is there a reason to separate
the changes ?
Regards
Sairaj Kodilkar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists