On Wed, Oct 27, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/10/21 17:06, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Does this still need to check the "running" flag? That should be a strict
> > > superset of vcpu->mode == IN_GUEST_MODE.
> >
> > No. Signalling the doorbell when "running" is set but the vCPU is not in
> > the
> > guest is just an expensive nop. So even if KVM were to rework its handling
> > of
> > "running" to set the flag immediately before VMRUN and clear it immediately
> > after,
> > keying off IN_GUEST_MODE and not "running" would not be wrong, just
> > sub-optimal.
> >
> > I doubt KVM will ever make the "running" flag super precise, because
> > keeping the
> > flag set when the vCPU is loaded avoids VM-Exits on other vCPUs due to
> > undelivered
> > IPIs.
>
> Right, so should we drop the "if (running)" check in this patch, at the same
> time as it's adding the IN_GUEST_MODE check?
LOL, I think we have a Three^WTwo Stooges routine going on. This patch does
remove avic_vcpu_is_running() and replaces it with the vcpu->mode check. Or am
I completely misunderstanding what your referring to?
- if (avic_vcpu_is_running(vcpu)) {
+ /*
+ * Signal the doorbell to tell hardware to inject the IRQ if the vCPU
+ * is in the guest. If the vCPU is not in the guest, hardware will
+ * automatically process AVIC interrupts at VMRUN.
+ */
+ if (vcpu->mode == IN_GUEST_MODE) {
int cpu = READ_ONCE(vcpu->cpu);
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
