On 2/1/2023 2:42 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote: >>> @@ -10015,13 +10022,34 @@ static void process_nmi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>> * Otherwise, allow two (and we'll inject the first one immediately). >>> */ >>> if (static_call(kvm_x86_get_nmi_mask)(vcpu) || vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) >>> - limit = 1; >>> + limit--; >>> + >>> + /* Also if there is already a NMI hardware queued to be injected, >>> + * decrease the limit again >>> + */ >> >> /* >> * Block comment ... >> */ >> >>> + if (static_call(kvm_x86_get_hw_nmi_pending)(vcpu)) >> >> I'd prefer "is_hw_nmi_pending()" over "get", even if it means not pairing with >> "set". Though I think that's a good thing since they aren't perfect pairs. > > Thinking more, I vote for s/hw_nmi/vnmi. "hardware" usually means actual hardware, > i.e. a pending NMI for the host. Ah!,. better. Thanks, Santosh
