>> > >+ 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. Yes. KVM differeniates "interrupt allowed" from "has interrupt", e.g., static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) ... if (kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) && (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) || kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt(vcpu))) return true; I think tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt() mixes them together, which isn't good. Probably it is a minor thing; if no one else thinks it is better to move the "interrupt allowed" check to tdx_interrupt_allowed(), I am also fine with not doing that.
