Kernel KVM virtualization development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Shivansh Dhiman <shivansh.dhiman@amd.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	 kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, yosry@kernel.org,
	jmattson@google.com,  thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
	nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, ravi.bangoria@amd.com,
	 santosh.shukla@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] KVM: SVM: Refactor svm_update_lbrv()
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 10:31:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arav9aN48nEZTv7V@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260721050600.87268-2-shivansh.dhiman@amd.com>

The shortlog is effectively "do work".  Be more precise.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026, Shivansh Dhiman wrote:
> Rewrite the enable_lbrv computation in svm_update_lbrv() as a series of
> 'if' statements. Rename nested_vmcb12_has_lbrv() to nested_lbrv_enabled(),
> expose it, and use it instead of open-coding the nested LBRV check.

This is super duper obviously two separate and *barely* related patches.

> No functional change intended.
> 
> Suggested-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Shivansh Dhiman <shivansh.dhiman@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v3 -> v4:
>  * Rename nested_vmcb12_has_lbrv() to nested_lbrv_enabled() (Yosry).

I don't like this change.  Unlike nested_vgif_enabled(), this is *only* checking
the effective vmcb12.  Once the guest_cpu_cap_has() code is moved elsewhere, I
don't see any point in keeping the helper.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index ef69a51ab27f..e9f2456982d4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -880,9 +880,13 @@ void svm_update_lbrv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
>  	bool current_enable_lbrv = svm->vmcb->control.misc_ctl2 & SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_LBR;
> -	bool enable_lbrv = (svm->vmcb->save.dbgctl & DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR) ||
> -			    (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && guest_cpu_cap_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LBRV) &&
> -			    (svm->nested.ctl.misc_ctl2 & SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_LBR));
> +	bool enable_lbrv = false;
> +
> +	if (svm->vmcb->save.dbgctl & DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR)
> +		enable_lbrv = true;
> +
> +	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && nested_lbrv_enabled(vcpu))
> +		enable_lbrv = true;

This is begging for short-circuit logic (which was kinda the point of the existing
code).  An if-elif is silly, and I agree that squeezing everything into variable
initialization is hard to read, so I think we should do:

static bool svm_need_lbr_virtualization(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);

	if (svm->vmcb->save.dbgctl & (DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR | DEBUGCTLMSR_BUS_LOCK_DETECT))
		return true;

	return is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
	       (svm->nested.ctl.misc_ctl2 & SVM_MISC2_ENABLE_V_LBR);
}


		bool enable_lbrv = svm_need_lbr_virtualization(vcpu);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-25 17:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-21  5:05 [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support and refactor LBRV Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] KVM: SVM: Refactor svm_update_lbrv() Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  6:40   ` Nikunj A. Dadhania
2026-07-21  9:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:31   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-09-30 22:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] KVM: nSVM: Disable LBRV in nested control cache when unsupported Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] KVM: nSVM: Sanitize nested DR6 using kvm_dr6_fixed() Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:21   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-25 17:26     ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-25 17:39   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 22:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] KVM: SVM: Turn DEBUGCTL_RESERVED_BITS into a helper Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:43   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 22:29     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:06 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:45 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support and refactor LBRV Sean Christopherson
2026-09-25 23:01   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-28 18:38     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-10-01 20:18     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-10-01 23:11       ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 23:05   ` Shivansh Dhiman

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=arav9aN48nEZTv7V@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nikunj.dadhania@amd.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
    --cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
    --cc=shivansh.dhiman@amd.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yosry@kernel.org \
    /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