From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09FE3CF63; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710516754; cv=none; b=d75yGiAM+EbsgHKhD38h8WBYRSp5PGcq6mi3G0wJxd+Lvt2W6XzHd/P5HFjf1lFwTkd9P75Lt4e9rgwk7N6P+LOlVop6qxx+TtjRmZmKdaKynWk6W6acFCcgRNGTHoa1/nhao4xaQK80QBTCrz8MyVYMZIwDBTQVMHUadrgw/tI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710516754; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qIWHRg8+eu5c29VD4Zm6n7oQubxdYCjfi82fseL+o50=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=b3f5BOYneF/P4fslT4UX7guwErE0shfGP1JVQpzYHfQRNVsumxP4egJop5xoXquG/lwFJSoXe9sicVZb/lca3GNqKDUfzNaithNVW0Cdd7VXXCbSyOCmIAofHSByDmRytecY3CgAbNE9ONRqIcIxldZb6P60wPrMfBTZbS98Uxo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=FV5dLuva; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="FV5dLuva" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1710516749; x=1742052749; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=qIWHRg8+eu5c29VD4Zm6n7oQubxdYCjfi82fseL+o50=; b=FV5dLuva2oEybl9ytZX6JtmeGxh958I3i79qxGbF2uk5AnG0vLQvPKQt xmVzG3Zj5ifas37wzJrxEVYfA8RCmObB4dcuQ/E8nVAy91/CklYJxmmXb J0vCHl4sz9OTsGwZHYcNwG69DtAFRAakTEA5uFCQ/LWT6jKulRbB61/qy qL1kllXHKPd3PZ51F0S7ek6aF2/pHBdEE59qYn315O8M/2tCZyIRuxfWt XzZGuMFXoXckaGPP9vyXg9/9F4cQE1H1g5rKB2exonQ1ETXkVDMyHfr/m uoybLkf4Qav5SouIl3wgZ4uwmoT72L+V0Y2x2YsxgyYeGW8bGrqRsDvOg g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11014"; a="5600794" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,128,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="5600794" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2024 08:32:29 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,128,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="12783740" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmviesa006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2024 08:32:25 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:46:16 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Shan Kang , Kai Huang , Xin Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] KVM: VMX: Open code VMX preemption timer rate mask in its accessor Message-ID: References: <20240309012725.1409949-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240309012725.1409949-9-seanjc@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240309012725.1409949-9-seanjc@google.com> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:27:24 -0800 > From: Sean Christopherson > Subject: [PATCH v6 8/9] KVM: VMX: Open code VMX preemption timer rate mask > in its accessor > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.44.0.278.ge034bb2e1d-goog > > From: Xin Li > > Use vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate() to get the rate in hardware_setup(), > and open code the rate's bitmask in vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate() so > that the function looks like all the helpers that grab values from > VMX_BASIC and VMX_MISC MSR values. > > No functional change intended. > > Cc: Shan Kang > Cc: Kai Huang > Signed-off-by: Xin Li > [sean: split to separate patch, write changelog] > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 3 +-- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h > index 6ff179b11235..90ed559076d7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h > @@ -148,7 +148,6 @@ static inline u32 vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type(u64 vmx_basic) > return (vmx_basic & GENMASK_ULL(53, 50)) >> 50; > } > > -#define VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK GENMASK_ULL(4, 0) > #define VMX_MISC_SAVE_EFER_LMA BIT_ULL(5) > #define VMX_MISC_ACTIVITY_HLT BIT_ULL(6) > #define VMX_MISC_ACTIVITY_SHUTDOWN BIT_ULL(7) > @@ -162,7 +161,7 @@ static inline u32 vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type(u64 vmx_basic) > > static inline int vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate(u64 vmx_misc) > { > - return vmx_misc & VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK; > + return vmx_misc & GENMASK_ULL(4, 0); > } I feel keeping VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK is clearer than GENMASK_ULL(4, 0), and the former improves code readability. May not need to drop VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK? Thanks, Zhao