Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Moving svm_complete_interrupts() into svm_vcpu_run() which can align VMX
> and SVM with respect to completing interrupts.
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul K. <kronenpj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index c61bc3b..74bcf0a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -2938,8 +2938,6 @@ static int handle_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, fastpath_t exit_fastpath)
> if (npt_enabled)
> vcpu->arch.cr3 = svm->vmcb->save.cr3;
>
> - svm_complete_interrupts(svm);
> -
> if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
> int vmexit;
>
> @@ -3530,6 +3528,8 @@ static __no_kcsan fastpath_t svm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> SVM_EXIT_EXCP_BASE + MC_VECTOR))
> svm_handle_mce(svm);
>
> + svm_complete_interrupts(svm);
> +
> vmcb_mark_all_clean(svm->vmcb);
> return exit_fastpath;
> }
This seems to be the right thing to do, however, the amount of code
between kvm_x86_ops.run() and kvm_x86_ops.handle_exit() is non-trivial,
hope it won't blow up in testing...
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
One more thing:
VMX version does
vmx_complete_interrupts(vmx);
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
return EXIT_FASTPATH_NONE;
and on SVM we analyze is_guest_mode() inside
svm_exit_handlers_fastpath() - should we also change that for
conformity?
--
Vitaly
