Wincy Van wrote on 2015-01-29:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Zhang, Yang Z <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>> -8646,7 +8750,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>> else
>>> vmcs_write64(APIC_ACCESS_ADDR,
>>>
>>> page_to_phys(vmx->nested.apic_access_page));
>>> - } else if
>>> (vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(vmx->vcpu.kvm)) {
>>> + } else if
>>> + (!(nested_cpu_has_virt_x2apic_mode(vmcs12))
>>> + &&
>>> +
>>> + (vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(vmx->vcpu.kvm))) {
>>> exec_control |=
>>
>> You don't load L2's apic_page in your patch correctly when x2apic
>> mode is
> used. Here is the right change for prepare_vmcs02()(maybe other place
> also need change too):
>>
>> @@ -8585,7 +8585,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>
> CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS))
>> exec_control |=
>> vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control;
>>
>> - if (exec_control &
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES) { + if
>> (exec_control & (SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES | + +
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE)) {
>> /*
>> * If translation failed, no matter: This
>> feature
> asks
>> * to exit when accessing the given address,
>> and if it @@ -8594,7 +8595,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> */
>> if (!vmx->nested.apic_access_page)
>> exec_control &=
>> - ~SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES; +
>> ~ (SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES | + +
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE);
>> else
>> vmcs_write64(APIC_ACCESS_ADDR,
>> page_to_phys(vmx->nested.apic_access_page));
>>
>
> I think we don't need to do this, if L1 enables x2apic mode, we have
> already checked that the vmcs12->SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES
> is 0. "exec_control |= vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control;" merged L1's
> settings, including x2apic mode. the special case is
> vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses, if vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses
> returns true, the nested_cpu_has_virt_x2apic_mode will prevent us to set
> the apic access bit.
I just realized that we are talking different thing. I am thinking about VIRTUAL_APIC_PAGE_ADDR(my mistake :)). And it has been handled correctly already. For APIC_ACCESS_ADDR, you are right. The current implementation can handle it well.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Wincy
Best regards,
Yang
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����o�^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
