On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:24:31PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
> Heh, actually after speaking about this to Paolo a while back, I had this
> sleeping
> in my local branch for a while. Same as what you suggested (without the
> ratelimiting)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index def97b3..c6e6f64 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -4952,7 +4952,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_invalidate_mmio_sptes(struct kvm *kvm,
> struct kvm_memslots *slots)
> * zap all shadow pages.
> */
> if (unlikely((slots->generation & MMIO_GEN_MASK) == 0)) {
> - printk_ratelimited(KERN_DEBUG "kvm: zapping shadow pages for
> mmio generation wraparound\n");
> + kvm_debug("zapping shadow pages for mmio generation
> wraparound\n");
> kvm_mmu_invalidate_zap_all_pages(kvm);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 7da5dd2..02d09f9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
> msr_data *msr_info)
> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr))
> return kvm_pmu_set_msr(vcpu, msr_info);
> if (!ignore_msrs) {
> - vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "unhandled wrmsr: 0x%x data
> %llx\n",
> + vcpu_debug(vcpu, "unhandled wrmsr: 0x%x data %llx\n",
> msr, data);
> return 1;
> } else {
> @@ -2441,7 +2441,7 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
> msr_data *msr_info)
> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr_info->index))
> return kvm_pmu_get_msr(vcpu, msr_info->index,
> &msr_info->data);
> if (!ignore_msrs) {
> - vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "unhandled rdmsr: 0x%x\n",
> msr_info->index);
> + vcpu_debug(vcpu, "unhandled rdmsr: 0x%x\n",
> msr_info->index);
> return 1;
> } else {
> vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "ignored rdmsr: 0x%x\n",
> msr_info->index);
>
> I had the same reasoning regarding dynamic debugging which I think is
> enabled by default on most builds anyway.
Yeah, that's close. Though I would have done the same for the other side of the
if's too.
(Still evaluating which mode is actually more useful for us).
Paolo, would you prefer this, or the other approach you already ack'd ?
Dave
