Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 29/04/20 14:44, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>>> + token = __this_cpu_read(apf_reason.token); >>>> + /* >>>> + * Make sure we read 'token' before we reset >>>> + * 'reason' or it can get lost. >>>> + */ >>>> + mb(); >>>> + __this_cpu_write(apf_reason.reason, 0); >>>> + kvm_async_pf_task_wake(token); >>>> + } >>> If tokens cannot be zero, could we avoid using reason for the page ready >>> interrupt (and ultimately retire "reason" completely)? >> Yes, we can switch to using 'token' exclusively but personally I'm not >> sure it is worth it. We'll still have to have a hole and reason + token >> is only u64. Keeping 'reason' in place allows us to easily come up with >> any other type of notification through this mecanism (if the reson is >> ... then 'token' means ...). > > If we need a "reason" field I'd rather make it separate from the page > not ready reason, because as we differentiate the delivery mechanism it > is cleaner to keep them separate. > > For example, if the reason is present but separate, the memory barrier > is not necessary anymore, because apf_reason.token cannot be written > before the ack MSR is written. And with #VE there will be already a > hardware-provided mechanism to avoid reentrancy. Ok, makes sense. I'll probably use your original idea and use 'token' for 'page ready' notification exclusively for now. In case of need we can always extend 'struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data' with the information we need so we can avoid adding 'reason2' for now. -- Vitaly
