public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:29:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ygvi5jr4V8S/bKSe@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220214131614.3050333-6-pbonzini@redhat.com>

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> A few vendor callbacks are only used by VMX, but they return an integer
> or bool value.  Introduce KVM_X86_OP_RET0 for them: a NULL value in

s/KVM_X86_OP_RET0/KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0

And maybe "NULL func" instead of "NULL value", since some members of kvm_x86_ops
hold a value, not a func.

> struct kvm_x86_ops will be changed to __static_call_return0.

This implies kvm_x86_ops itself is changed, which is incorrect.  "will be patched
to __static_call_return0() when updating static calls" or so.

> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h    |  4 ++++
>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c            |  5 -----
>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c             | 26 --------------------------
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                 |  2 +-
>  kernel/static_call.c               |  1 +
>  6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
> index 0a074354aaf7..ad75ff5ac220 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
> @@ -6,14 +6,19 @@ BUILD_BUG_ON(1)
>  /*
>   * KVM_X86_OP() and KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() are used to help generate
>   * "static_call()"s. They are also intended for use when defining
> - * the vmx/svm kvm_x86_ops. KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() can be used for those
> + * the vmx/svm kvm_x86_ops.
> + *
> + * KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() can be used for those
>   * functions that can have a NULL definition, for example if
>   * "static_call_cond()" will be used at the call sites.
> + * KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0() can be used likewise to make
> + * a definition optional, but in this case the default will 

ERROR: trailing whitespace
#35: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h:15:
+ * a definition optional, but in this case the default will $

> + * be __static_call_return0.

Uber nit, __static_call_return0() to make it clear that that's a function, not a
magic return value (though arguably it's that too).

>   */
>  KVM_X86_OP(hardware_enable)
>  KVM_X86_OP(hardware_disable)
>  KVM_X86_OP(hardware_unsetup)
> -KVM_X86_OP(cpu_has_accelerated_tpr)
> +KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0(cpu_has_accelerated_tpr)

Can we instead just remove this helper entirely and return '1' unconditionally
from KVM_CAP_VAPIC?

The usage appears to be wrong, this will return '0' for VMX, '1' for SVM.

	case KVM_CAP_VAPIC:
		r = !static_call(kvm_x86_cpu_has_accelerated_tpr)();
		break;

Further more, our uapi says:

  /* Available with KVM_CAP_VAPIC */
  #define KVM_TPR_ACCESS_REPORTING  _IOWR(KVMIO, 0x92, struct kvm_tpr_access_ctl)
  /* Available with KVM_CAP_VAPIC */
  #define KVM_SET_VAPIC_ADDR        _IOW(KVMIO,  0x93, struct kvm_vapic_addr)

But neither of those check cpu_has_accelerated_tpr().  QEMU doesn't check the
cap, and AFAICT neither does our VMM.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-15 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-14 13:16 [PATCH v2 0/5] kvm: x86: better handling of optional kvm_x86_ops Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-14 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: x86: use static_call_cond for optional callbacks Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-15 16:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-14 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: remove KVM_X86_OP_NULL and mark optional kvm_x86_ops Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-15 17:08   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-15 17:09     ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-14 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] KVM: x86: warn on incorrectly NULL static calls Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-15 17:10   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-14 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: x86: make several APIC virtualization callbacks optional Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-15 17:12   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-14 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-15 17:29   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-02-15 18:07     ` Paolo Bonzini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Ygvi5jr4V8S/bKSe@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox