From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: SVM: Optimize nested svm msrpm merging
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:30:49 +0100
Message-ID: <20100226133049.GG12689@amd.com>
References: <1267118149-15737-1-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com>
 <1267118149-15737-3-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com>
 <4B87A248.1050300@redhat.com>
 <20100226122502.GC12689@amd.com>
 <4E7D93ED-E5FC-4A64-B9B0-E2F644CD2B68@suse.de>
 <20100226130401.GD12689@amd.com>
 <4B87C835.4080409@redhat.com>
 <20100226132118.GF12689@amd.com>
 <5E91C233-4FE1-43DB-A155-03F14FCEF919@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5E91C233-4FE1-43DB-A155-03F14FCEF919@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:26:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 26.02.2010, at 14:21, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 02/26/2010 03:04 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I'm still not convinced on this way of doing things. If it's static,
> >>>> make it static. If it's dynamic, make it dynamic. Dynamically
> >>>> generating a static list just sounds plain wrong to me.
> >>> Stop. I had a static list in the first version of the patch. This list
> >>> was fine except the fact that a developer needs to remember to update
> >>> this list if the list of non-intercepted msrs is expanded. The whole
> >>> reason for a dynamically built list is to take the task of maintaining
> >>> the list away from the developer and remove a possible source of hard to
> >>> find bugs. This is what the current approach does.
> >> 
> >> The problem was the two lists.  If you had a
> >> 
> >> static struct svm_direct_access_msrs = {
> >>    u32 index;
> >>    bool longmode_only;
> >> } direct_access_msrs = {
> >>   ...
> >> };
> >> 
> >> You could generate
> >> 
> >> static unsigned *msrpm_offsets_longmode, *msrpm_offsets_legacy;
> >> 
> >> as well as the original bitmaps at module init, no?
> > 
> > True for the msrs the guest always has access too. But for the lbr-msrs
> > the intercept bits may change at runtime. So an addtional flag is
> > required to indicate if the bits should be cleared initially.
> 
> So the msrpm bitmap changes dynamically for each vcpu? Great, make it
> fully dynamic then, changing the vcpu->arch.msrpm only from within its
> vcpu context. No need for atomic ops.

The msrpm_offsets table is global. But I think I will follow Avis
suggestions and create a static direct_access_msrs list and generate the
msrpm_offsets at module_init. This solves the problem of two independent
lists too.

	Joerg