On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 07:49:28AM -0700,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024, Chao Gao wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:26:50AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >Wire up TDX PV HLT hypercall to the KVM backend function.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >---
> > >v19:
> > >- move tdvps_state_non_arch_check() to this patch
> > >
> > >v18:
> > >- drop buggy_hlt_workaround and use TDH.VP.RD(TD_VCPU_STATE_DETAILS)
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.h | 4 ++++
> > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > >index eb68d6c148b6..a2caf2ae838c 100644
> > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > >@@ -688,7 +688,18 @@ void tdx_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> > >
> > > bool tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > >- return pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
> > >+ bool ret = pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
> >
> > Maybe
> > bool has_pending_interrupt = pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
> >
> > "ret" isn't a good name. or even call pi_has_pending_interrupt() directly in
> > the if statement below.
>
> Ya, or split the if-statement into multiple chucks, with comments explaining
> what each non-intuitive chunk is doing. The pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu) check
> is self-explanatory, the halted thing, not so much. They are terminal statements,
> there's zero reason to pre-check the PID.
>
> E.g.
>
> /*
> * Comment explaining why KVM needs to assume a non-halted vCPU has a
> * pending interrupt (KVM can't see RFLAGS.IF).
> */
> if (vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
> return true;
>
> if (pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu))
> return;
>
> > >+ union tdx_vcpu_state_details details;
> > >+ struct vcpu_tdx *tdx = to_tdx(vcpu);
> > >+
> > >+ if (ret || vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
> > >+ return true;
> >
> > Question: why mp_state matters here?
> > >+
> > >+ if (tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt)
> > >+ return false;
> >
> > Shouldn't we move this into vt_interrupt_allowed()? VMX calls the function to
> > check if interrupt is disabled.
Chao, are you suggesting to implement tdx_interrupt_allowed() as
"EXIT_REASON_HLT && a0" instead of "return true"?
I don't think it makes sense because it's rare case and we can't avoid spurious
wakeup for TDX case.
> >KVM can clear tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt on
> > every TD-enter and set it only on TD-exit due to the guest making a
> > TDVMCALL(hlt) w/ interrupt disabled.
>
> I'm pretty sure interrupt_disabled_hlt shouldn't exist, should "a0", a.k.a. r12,
> be preserved at this point?
>
> /* Another comment explaning magic code. */
> if (to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.basic == EXIT_REASON_HLT &&
> tdvmcall_a0_read(vcpu))
> return false;
>
>
> Actually, can't this all be:
>
> if (to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.basic != EXIT_REASON_HLT)
> return true;
>
> if (!tdvmcall_a0_read(vcpu))
> return false;
>
> if (pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu))
> return true;
>
> return tdx_has_pending_virtual_interrupt(vcpu);
>
Thanks for the suggestion. This is much cleaner. Will update the function.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
