On Fri, 2024-08-23 at 16:47 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:35:37 +0100, Ilias Stamatis wrote: > > The current MMIO coalescing design has a few drawbacks which limit its > > usefulness. Currently all coalesced MMIO zones use the same ring buffer. > > That means that upon a userspace exit we have to handle potentially > > unrelated MMIO writes synchronously. And a VM-wide lock needs to be > > taken in the kernel when an MMIO exit occurs. > > > > Additionally, there is no direct way for userspace to be notified about > > coalesced MMIO writes. If the next MMIO exit to userspace is when the > > ring buffer has filled then a substantial (and unbounded) amount of time > > may have passed since the first coalesced MMIO. > > > > [...] > > Applied patch 1 to kvm-x86 generic. I deliberately didn't put this in fixes or > Cc: it for stable, as the bug has been around for sooo long without anyone > noticing that there's basically zero chance that the bug is actively causing > issues. > > I also reworked and expanded the changelog significantly to make it more clear > why things break, what the fallout is (KVM can _sometimes_ use the full ring), > and to call out that the lockless scheme that the buggy commit was preparing > for never seems to have landed. > > Please take a gander at the changelog and holler if I messed anything up. > > [1/6] KVM: Fix coalesced_mmio_has_room() to avoid premature userspace exit > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/92f6d4130497 > > -- > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next It looks good, thanks. > Doh, I applied v2 instead of v3. Though unless mine eyes deceive me, > they're the same. They are the same indeed. I'm not entirely sure what's the recommended thing to do when updating only some of the patches of a series, whether to send new versions for the revised patches only or resend everything. I opted to do the latter and then I called out the changes between v2 and v3 inside the patches that were actually modified. Thanks, Ilias
