On Thu, Aug 11, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Do not return true from kvm_apic_has_events, and consequently from
> kvm_vcpu_has_events, if the vCPU is not going to process an INIT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 +++++
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.h | 5 -----
> 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 293ff678fff5..1ce4ebc41118 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -2042,6 +2042,7 @@ void __user *__x86_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, int id, gpa_t gpa,
> u32 size);
> bool kvm_vcpu_is_reset_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> bool kvm_vcpu_is_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +bool kvm_vcpu_latch_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>
> bool kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq,
> struct kvm_vcpu **dest_vcpu);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> index e1bb6218bb96..177555eea54e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> -#include "irq.h"
> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>
> -#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> +#include "irq.h"
> #include "trace.h"
>
> #define pr_pic_unimpl(fmt, ...) \
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> index 117a46df5cc1..12577ddccdfc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> static inline bool kvm_apic_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - return lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) && vcpu->arch.apic->pending_events;
> + return lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) && vcpu->arch.apic->pending_events && !kvm_vcpu_latch_init(vcpu);
Blech, the kvm_apic_has_events() name is awful (as is pending_events), e.g. it
really should be kvm_apic_has_pending_sipi_or_init().
To avoid the odd kvm_vcpu_latch_init() declaration and the long line above, what
if we open code this in kvm_vcpu_has_events() like we do for NMI, SMI, etc...?
And as follow-up, I would love to rename kvm_vcpu_latch_init() => kvm_vcpu_init_blocked(),
kvm_apic_has_events(), and pending_events.
E.g. for this patch just do:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 9f11b505cbee..559900736a71 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -12533,7 +12533,8 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
if (!list_empty_careful(&vcpu->async_pf.done))
return true;
- if (kvm_apic_has_events(vcpu))
+ /* comment explaning that SIPIs are dropped in this case. */
+ if (kvm_apic_has_events(vcpu) && !kvm_vcpu_latch_init(vcpu))
return true;
if (vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted)
