On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 15:19 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT is an even stronger operation than > KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_GUEST so KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH needs not to be > processed after it. > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > index e5aec386d299..d3839e648ab3 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > @@ -3357,8 +3357,11 @@ static inline void kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_current(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > */ > void kvm_service_local_tlb_flush_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > - if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT, vcpu)) > + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT, vcpu)) { > kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_current(vcpu); > + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu)) > + kvm_hv_vcpu_empty_flush_tlb(vcpu); > + } > > if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_GUEST, vcpu)) { > kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_guest(vcpu); I think that this patch should be moved near patch 1 and/or even squished with it. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky