On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, Yu Zhang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 03:10:15PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Use the governed feature framework to track if XSAVES is "enabled", i.e. > > if XSAVES can be used by the guest. Add a comment in the SVM code to > > explain the very unintuitive logic of deliberately NOT checking if XSAVES > > is enumerated in the guest CPUID model. > > > > No functional change intended. > > xsaves_enabled in struct kvm_vcpu_arch is no longer used. But instead of > just deleting it, maybe we could move 'bool load_eoi_exitmap_pending' to > its place, so 7 bytes can be saved for each struct kvm_vcpu_arch: I prefer leaving load_eoi_exitmap_pending where it is so that it's co-located with ioapic_handled_vectors. I agree wasting 7 bytes is unfortunate, but I don't want to take an ad hoc approach to shrinking per-vCPU structs. See the link below for more discussion. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230213163351.30704-1-minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index cd660de02f7b..0eef5469c165 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -740,7 +740,6 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch { > u64 efer; > u64 apic_base; > struct kvm_lapic *apic; /* kernel irqchip context */ > - bool load_eoi_exitmap_pending; > DECLARE_BITMAP(ioapic_handled_vectors, 256); > unsigned long apic_attention; > int32_t apic_arb_prio; > @@ -750,7 +749,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch { > u64 smi_count; > bool at_instruction_boundary; > bool tpr_access_reporting; > - bool xsaves_enabled; > + bool load_eoi_exitmap_pending; > bool xfd_no_write_intercept; > u64 ia32_xss; > u64 microcode_version; > > B.R. > Yu >
