On 20/08/20 12:05, Maxim Levitsky wrote: >> You probably should set clean to 0 also if the guest doesn't have the >> VMCBCLEAN feature (so, you first need an extra patch to add the >> VMCBCLEAN feature to cpufeatures.h). It's probably best to cache the >> guest vmcbclean in struct vcpu_svm, too. > Right, I totally forgot about this one. > > One thing why I made this patch optional, is that I can instead drop it, > and not 'read back' the saved area on vmexit, this will probably be faster > that what this optimization does. What do you think? Is this patch worth it? > (I submitted it because I already implemented this and wanted to hear opinion > on this). Yeah, good point. It's one copy either way, either on vmexit (and partly on vmentry depending on clean bits) or on vmentry. I had not considered the need to copy from vmcb02 to the cached vmcb12 on vmexit. :( Let's shelve this for a bit, and revisit it once we have separate vmcb01 and vmcb02. Then we might still use the clean bits to avoid copying data from vmcb12 to vmcb02, including avoiding consistency checks because we know the vmcb02 data is legit. Patches 1-5 are still worthwhile, so you can clean them up and send them. Paolo
