On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 02:24:35PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > An extra CALL+RET isn't going to be noticeable, especially on modern > hardware as the high frequency VMWRITE/VMREAD fields should hit the > shadow VMCS. In your last email with regard to the inlining optimizations made possible by the monolithic KVM model you said "That'd likely save a few CALL/RET/JMP instructions", that kind of directly contradicts the above. I think neither one if taken at face value can be possibly measured. However the above only is relevant for nested KVM so I'm fine if there's an agreement that it's better to hide the nested vmx handlers in nested.c at the cost of some call/ret. >From my part I'm dropping 15/16/17 in the short term, perhaps Vitaly or you or Paolo if he has time, want to work on that part in parallel to the orthogonal KVM monolithic changes? Thanks, Andrea
