Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: INVPCID support | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:18:41 +0200 |
| |
>> Can't we rewrite that a little bit, avoiding that "best" handling >> (introducing guest_cpuid_disable_invpcid() and guest_cpuid_has_invpcid()) >> >> bool invpcid_enabled = guest_cpuid_has_pcid(vcpu) && >> guest_cpuid_has_invpcid(); >> >> if (!invpcid_enabled) { >> secondary_exec_ctl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_INVPCID; >> /* make sure there is no no INVPCID without PCID */ >> guest_cpuid_disable_invpcid(vcpu); >> } > > I don't know... if you need a comment, it means the different structure > of the code doesn't spare many doubts from the reader. And the code > doesn't become much simpler since you have to handle "nested" anyway. > What I tried to do was to mimic as much as possible the rdtscp case, but > it cannot be exactly the same due to the interaction between PCID and > INVPCID.
It's more about the handling of best here, which can be avoided quite easily as I showed (by encapsulating how cpuids are looked up/modified).
But you are the maintainer, so feel free to stick to what you have. :)
> > Paolo >
--
Thanks,
David
| |