Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] KVM: VMX: enable IPI virtualization | From | Zeng Guang <> | Date | Sat, 17 Jul 2021 11:55:37 +0800 |
| |
On 7/16/2021 5:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 16/07/21 08:48, Zeng Guang wrote: >> >> + if (!(_cpu_based_3rd_exec_control & TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT)) >> + enable_ipiv = 0; >> + >> } > > Please move this to hardware_setup(), using a new function > cpu_has_vmx_ipiv() in vmx/capabilities.h. > ok, we will change it to follow current framework. >> if (_cpu_based_exec_control & >> CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_TERTIARY_CONTROLS) { >> - u64 opt3 = 0; >> + u64 opt3 = enable_ipiv ? TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT : 0; >> u64 min3 = 0; > > I like the idea of changing opt3, but it's different from how > setup_vmcs_config works for the other execution controls. Let me > think if it makes sense to clean this up, and move the handling of > other module parameters from hardware_setup() to setup_vmcs_config(). > May be an exception for ipiv feature ? >> + >> + if (vmx->ipiv_active) >> + install_pid(vmx); > > This should be if (enable_ipiv) instead, I think. > > In fact, in all other places that are using vmx->ipiv_active, you can > actually replace it with enable_ipiv; they are all reached only with > kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu) == true. > enable_ipiv as a global variable indicates the hardware capability to enable IPIv. Each VM may have different IPIv configuration according to kvm_vcpu_apicv_active status. So we use ipiv_active per VM to enclose IPIv related operations. >> + if (!enable_apicv) { >> + enable_ipiv = 0; >> + vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl &= ~TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT; >> + } > > The assignment to vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl should not be > necessary; kvm_vcpu_apicv_active will always be false in that case and > IPI virtualization would never be enabled. > We originally intend to make vmcs_config consistent with the actual ipiv capability and decouple it from other factors. As you mentioned , it's not necessary to update vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl in this case. We will remove it.
Thanks.
> Paolo >
| |