Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm: refine condition for checking vCPU preempted

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Li,Rongqing wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, Li,Rongqing wrote:
> > > > Rather than have the guest rely on host KVM behavior clearing
> > > > PV_UNHALT when HLT is passed through), would it make sense to add
> > > > something like KVM_HINTS_HLT_PASSTHROUGH to more explicitly tell the
> > > > guest that HLT isn't intercepted?
> > >
> > > KVM_HINTS_HLT_PASSTHROUGH is more obvious, but it need both kvm and
> > > guest support
> > 
> > Yeah, that's the downside.  But modifying KVM and/or the userspace VMM
> > shouldn't be difficult, i.e the only meaningful cost is the rollout of a new
> > kernel/VMM.
> > 
> > On the other hand, establishing the heuristic that !PV_UNHALT ==
> > HLT_PASSTHROUGH could have to subtle issues in the future.  It safe-ish in the
> > context of this patch as userspace is unlikely to set KVM_HINTS_REALTIME, hide
> > PV_UNHALT, and _not_ passthrough HLT.  But without the REALTIME side of
> > things, !PV_UNHALT == HLT_PASSTHROUGH is much less likely to hold true.
> 
> Ok, could you submit these codes

I'd like to hear from others first, especially Paolo and/or Wanpeng.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux