public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Alejandro Jimenez <alejandro.j.jimenez@oracle.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  joao.m.martins@oracle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,  suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com,
	mlevitsk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Only set APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT if APICv is enabled
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:37:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZiBPHVKKnQPYK7Xy@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240417200849.971433-2-alejandro.j.jimenez@oracle.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, Alejandro Jimenez wrote:
> Use the APICv enablement status to determine if APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT
> needs to be set, instead of unconditionally setting the reason during
> initialization.
> 
> Specifically, in cases where AVIC is disabled via module parameter or lack
> of hardware support, unconditionally setting an inhibit reason due to the
> absence of an in-kernel local APIC can lead to a scenario where the reason
> incorrectly remains set after a local APIC has been created by either
> KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP or the enabling of KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP_SPLIT. This is
> because the helpers in charge of removing the inhibit return early if
> enable_apicv is not true, and therefore the bit remains set.
> 
> This leads to confusion as to the cause why APICv is not active, since an
> incorrect reason will be reported by tracepoints and/or a debugging tool
> that examines the currently set inhibit reasons.
> 
> Fixes: ef8b4b720368 ("KVM: ensure APICv is considered inactive if there is no APIC")
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Jimenez <alejandro.j.jimenez@oracle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 26288ca05364..eadd88fabadc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -9999,7 +9999,20 @@ static void kvm_apicv_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>  
>  	init_rwsem(&kvm->arch.apicv_update_lock);
>  
> -	set_or_clear_apicv_inhibit(inhibits, APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT, true);
> +	/*
> +	 * Unconditionally inhibiting APICv due to the absence of in-kernel
> +	 * local APIC can lead to a scenario where APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT
> +	 * remains set in the apicv_inhibit_reasons after a local APIC has been
> +	 * created by either KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP or the enabling of
> +	 * KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP_SPLIT.
> +	 * Hardware support and module parameters governing APICv enablement
> +	 * have already been evaluated and the initial status is available in
> +	 * enable_apicv, so it can be used here to determine if an inhibit needs
> +	 * to be set.
> +	 */

Eh, this is good changelog material, but I don't think it's not necessary for
a comment.  Readers of this code really should be able to deduce that enable_apicv
can't be toggled on, i.e. DISABLE can't go away.

> +	if (enable_apicv)
> +		set_or_clear_apicv_inhibit(inhibits,
> +					   APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT, true);
>  
>  	if (!enable_apicv)
>  		set_or_clear_apicv_inhibit(inhibits,

This can more concisely be:

	enum kvm_apicv_inhibit reason = enable_apicv ? APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT :
						       APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_DISABLE;

	set_or_clear_apicv_inhibit(&kvm->arch.apicv_inhibit_reasons, reason, true);

	init_rwsem(&kvm->arch.apicv_update_lock);

which I think also helps the documentation side, e.g. it's shows the VM starts
with either ABSENT *or* DISABLE.

> -- 
> 2.39.3
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-17 22:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-17 20:08 [PATCH 0/2] APICv-related fixes for inhibits and tracepoint Alejandro Jimenez
2024-04-17 20:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Only set APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_ABSENT if APICv is enabled Alejandro Jimenez
2024-04-17 22:37   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-04-18  1:16     ` Alejandro Jimenez
2024-04-17 20:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Remove VT-d mention in posted interrupt tracepoint Alejandro Jimenez

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=ZiBPHVKKnQPYK7Xy@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=alejandro.j.jimenez@oracle.com \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.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