From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 5/9] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:39:52 +0700
Message-ID: <56C6FF08.6050408@amd.com>
References: <56C2C1BF.7010700@amd.com> <56C312E1.1080902@redhat.com>
 <20160216141330.GG10555@potion.brq.redhat.com> <56C354A5.4040807@redhat.com>
 <20160216180618.GA18952@potion.brq.redhat.com> <56C52B80.5050104@amd.com>
 <20160218141817.GA6289@potion.brq.redhat.com> <56C5DA62.8080204@redhat.com>
 <20160218154343.GA18904@potion.brq.redhat.com> <56C5E8E1.9060900@redhat.com>
 <20160218162701.GB6289@potion.brq.redhat.com> <56C5FCCF.5010802@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: <joro@8bytes.org>, <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, <gleb@kernel.org>,
	<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<wei@redhat.com>, <sherry.hurwitz@amd.com>,
	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <56C5FCCF.5010802@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On 2/19/16 00:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 18/02/2016 17:27, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 wrote:
>> 2016-02-18 16:53+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>>> Patch 9 is okay, but it is also necessary to clear IsRunning in
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking.  In
>>> addition, vcpu_put/vcpu_load should not modify IsRunning between
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking.  Do you agree?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I think we don't need to clear IsRunning on preemption, which would
>> simplify the protection.  (I haven't thought much about userspace ex=
it,
>> so maybe we could skip that one as well, but we don't need to now.)
>>
>> The reason for that is that KVM knows that the VCPU was scheduled ou=
t,
>> so it couldn't do much in the AVIC VMEXIT.
>> (KVM could force scheduler to pritioritize the VCPU, but our kick
>>   doesn't do that now and it seems like a bad idea.)
>>
>> Does it seem reasonable?
>
> Yes, and in fact it wouldn't need to clear and set IsRunning on
> vcpu_put/vcpu_load; only on vcpu_blocking/vcpu_unblocking.
>
> The IsRunning flag is more of a IsNotHalted flag, in the end.
>
> Paolo
>

Good point. I have made the change by introducing new function pointer,=
=20
kvm_x86_ops.vcpu_blocking() and kvm_x86_ops.vcpu_unblocking(). Then=20
provides the hook to set/unset the IsRunningBit here. Also, I no longer=
=20
set the bit in the vcpu_load/vcpu_put.

If this is okay. I'll send out V2 soon.

Thanks,
Suravee