From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC v2 07/10] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:44:24 +0700
Message-ID: <56EB0918.80709@amd.com>
References: <1457124368-2025-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <1457124368-2025-8-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <20160309205512.GD19459@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>, <bp@alien8.de>,
	<gleb@kernel.org>, <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<wei@redhat.com>, <sherry.hurwitz@amd.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bl2on0093.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.93]:42614
	"EHLO na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752721AbcCQToq (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:44:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160309205512.GD19459@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Hi,

On 3/10/16 03:55, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 wrote:
> 2016-03-04 14:46-0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit:
>> >From: Suravee Suthikulpanit<suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> >
>> >Introduce VMEXIT handlers, avic_incp_ipi_interception() and
>> >avic_noaccel_interception().
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> >---
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> >@@ -3690,6 +3690,264 @@ static int mwait_interception(struct vcpu_s=
vm *svm)
>> >+	case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_TARGET_NOT_RUN: {
>> >+		kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> >+			if (!kvm_apic_match_dest(vcpu, apic,
>> >+						 icrl & APIC_SHORT_MASK,
>> >+						 GET_APIC_DEST_FIELD(icrh),
>> >+						 icrl & APIC_DEST_MASK))
>> >+				continue;
>> >+
>> >+			kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> KVM shouldn't kick VCPUs that are running.  (Imagine a broadcast when
> most VCPUs are in guest mode.)

So, besides checking if the vcpu match the destination, I will add the=20
check to see if the is_running bit is set before calling kvm_vcpu_kick(=
)

> I think a new helper might be useful here: we only want to wake up fr=
om
> wait queue, but never force VCPU out of guest mode ... kvm_vcpu_kick(=
)
> does both.

If I only kick non-running vcpu, do I still need this new helper functi=
on?

Thanks,
Suravee