Re: [PATCH v19 108/130] KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV HLT hypercall

Isaku Yamahata
2024-04-08T18:56:14Z

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 11:50:04AM +0800,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:

> >> > >+ union tdx_vcpu_state_details details;
> >> > >+ struct vcpu_tdx *tdx = to_tdx(vcpu);
> >> > >+
> >> > >+ if (ret || vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
> >> > >+ return true;
> >> >
> >> > Question: why mp_state matters here?
> >> > >+
> >> > >+ if (tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt)
> >> > >+ return false;
> >> >
> >> > Shouldn't we move this into vt_interrupt_allowed()? VMX calls the function to
> >> > check if interrupt is disabled.
> >
> >Chao, are you suggesting to implement tdx_interrupt_allowed() as
> >"EXIT_REASON_HLT && a0" instead of "return true"?
> >I don't think it makes sense because it's rare case and we can't avoid spurious
> >wakeup for TDX case.
>
> Yes. KVM differeniates "interrupt allowed" from "has interrupt", e.g.,
>
> static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> ...
>
> if (kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) ||
> kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt(vcpu)))
> return true;
>
>
> I think tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt() mixes them together, which isn't
> good.

Your point is code clarity. Ok, we can code in that way. I don't expect any
performance difference.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>