On Thu, Apr 07, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> @@ -486,6 +487,17 @@ static void nested_save_pending_event_to_vmcb12(struct vcpu_svm *svm,
>
> static void nested_svm_transition_tlb_flush(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + /*
> + * KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH flushes entries from either L1's VPID or
Can you use VP_ID or some variation to avoid "VPID"? This looks like a copy+paste
from nVMX gone bad and will confuse the heck out of people that are more familiar
with VMX's VPID.
> + * L2's VPID upon request from the guest. Make sure we check for
> + * pending entries for the case when the request got misplaced (e.g.
> + * a transition from L2->L1 happened while processing Direct TLB flush
> + * request or vice versa). kvm_hv_vcpu_flush_tlb() will not flush
> + * anything if there are no requests in the corresponding buffer.
> + */
> + if (to_hv_vcpu(vcpu))
> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu);
> +
> /*
> * TODO: optimize unconditional TLB flush/MMU sync. A partial list of
> * things to fix before this can be conditional:
