> > > > > --- 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.
void kvm_check_async_pf_completion(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvm_async_pf *work;
while (!list_empty_careful(&vcpu->async_pf.done) &&
kvm_arch_can_inject_async_page_present(vcpu)) {
spin_lock(&vcpu->async_pf.lock);
and you made kvm_arch_can_inject_async_page_present(vcpu) return false if !KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED (i.e. not enabled)
> > Maybe you had KVM_ASYNC_PF_ENABLED?
> Of course I did. Not sure I get what you mean...
I mean if the guest support for async pf is not enabled you maybe broke that?
--Mika
--
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
