On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 04:14:48PM +0200, Mika Penttilä wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 12:45:28PM +0200, Mika Penttilä wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index bf11fe4..14a46e9 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -8402,7 +8402,7 @@ void kvm_arch_async_page_present(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > bool kvm_arch_can_inject_async_page_present(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > {
> > > > if (!(vcpu->arch.apf.msr_val & KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED))
> > > > - return true;
> > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Why do you make this change?
>
> > Because the code does the opposite of what it's meant to do.
>
> It could have a better name but returning "true" is right. See below.
>
> > > I think kvm_arch_async_page_present() is not
> > > ever called now and neither kvm_del_async_pf_gfn(vcpu, work->arch.gfn);
>
> > I wonder how you came to such a conclusion? I certainly see them called
> > on my test machine (you need to have the guest memory swapped out for
> > that, that can be forced e.g. using a memory cgroup).
>
> if !KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED then kvm_check_async_pf_completion(), it's only call site, never calls it.
How's that? I don't see any check for it in
kvm_check_async_pf_completion(). Moreover, that's exactly where it does
that check.
> Maybe you had KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED?
Of course I did. Not sure I get what you mean...
Roman.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
