On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:21:00PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 16fb39503296..e4d475df1d4a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9230,6 +9230,14 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > local_irq_disable();
> > kvm_after_interrupt(vcpu);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * When using tick-based accounting, wait until after servicing IRQs to
> > + * account guest time so that any ticks that occurred while running the
> > + * guest are properly accounted to the guest.
> > + */
> > + if (!vtime_accounting_enabled_this_cpu())
> > + vtime_account_guest_exit();
>
> Can we rather have instead:
>
> static inline void tick_account_guest_exit(void)
> {
> if (!vtime_accounting_enabled_this_cpu())
> current->flags &= ~PF_VCPU;
> }
>
> It duplicates a bit of code but I think this will read less confusing.
Either way works for me. I used vtime_account_guest_exit() to try to keep as
many details as possible inside vtime, e.g. in case the implemenation is tweaked
in the future. But I agree that pretending KVM isn't already deeply intertwined
with the details is a lie.
