Messages in this thread - First message in thread
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
- "Suthikulpanit, Suravee"
| | | From | Vitaly Kuznetsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/15] kvm: x86: Modify kvm_x86_ops.get_enable_apicv() to use struct kvm parameter | Date | Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:15:18 +0200 |
| |
"Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> writes:
> Generally, APICv for all vcpus in the VM are enable/disable in the same > manner. So, get_enable_apicv() should represent APICv status of the VM > instead of each VCPU. > > Modify kvm_x86_ops.get_enable_apicv() to take struct kvm as parameter > instead of struct kvm_vcpu. > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +- > arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 5 +++-- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +- > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index 26d1eb8..56bc702 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { > void (*enable_nmi_window)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > void (*enable_irq_window)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > void (*update_cr8_intercept)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int tpr, int irr); > - bool (*get_enable_apicv)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > + bool (*get_enable_apicv)(struct kvm *kvm); > void (*refresh_apicv_exec_ctrl)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > void (*hwapic_irr_update)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr); > void (*hwapic_isr_update)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int isr); > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c > index ccd5aa6..6851bce 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c > @@ -384,6 +384,7 @@ struct amd_svm_iommu_ir { > static void svm_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0); > static void svm_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool invalidate_gpa); > static void svm_complete_interrupts(struct vcpu_svm *svm); > +static bool svm_get_enable_apicv(struct kvm *kvm);
Why is this forward declaration needed [in this patch]?
> > static int nested_svm_exit_handled(struct vcpu_svm *svm); > static int nested_svm_intercept(struct vcpu_svm *svm); > @@ -5124,9 +5125,9 @@ static void svm_set_virtual_apic_mode(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return; > } > > -static bool svm_get_enable_apicv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +static bool svm_get_enable_apicv(struct kvm *kvm) > { > - return avic && irqchip_split(vcpu->kvm); > + return avic && irqchip_split(kvm); > } > > static void svm_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr) > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > index d98eac3..18a4b94 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > @@ -3610,7 +3610,7 @@ void pt_update_intercept_for_msr(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) > } > } > > -static bool vmx_get_enable_apicv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +static bool vmx_get_enable_apicv(struct kvm *kvm) > { > return enable_apicv; > } > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > index fafd81d..7daf0dd 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > @@ -9150,7 +9150,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > goto fail_free_pio_data; > > if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm)) { > - vcpu->arch.apicv_active = kvm_x86_ops->get_enable_apicv(vcpu); > + vcpu->arch.apicv_active = kvm_x86_ops->get_enable_apicv(vcpu->kvm); > r = kvm_create_lapic(vcpu, lapic_timer_advance_ns); > if (r < 0) > goto fail_mmu_destroy;
With the above question answered (or declaration moved to the patch where it's actually needed)
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
-- Vitaly
| |