Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ping @Sean Christopherson
>
Let's try 'Beetlejuice' instead :-)
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 8c8560b83390("KVM: x86/mmu: Use KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT for MMU specific flushes)
>> changed it without giving any reason in the changelog.
>>
>> In theory, the syncing is needed, and need to be fixed by reverting
>> this part of change.
Even if the original commit is not wordy enough this is hardly
better. Are you seeing a particular scenario when a change in current
vCPU's MMU requires flushing TLB entries for *other* contexts, ... (see
below)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
>> index 4e03841f053d..9a93de921f2b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
>> @@ -2468,7 +2468,7 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> }
>>
>> if (sp->unsync_children)
>> - kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT, vcpu);
>> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_MMU_SYNC, vcpu);
... in particular, why are you reverting only this hunk? Please elaborate.
>>
>> __clear_sp_write_flooding_count(sp);
>>
>> --
>> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>>
>
--
Vitaly
