On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 19:49 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Any thoughts on how best to handle this? The below hack-a-fix resolves the issue, > > but it's obviously not appropriate. KVM uses vcpu->preempted for more than just > > posted interrupts, so KVM needs equivalent functionality to current->on-rq as it > > was before this commit. > > > > @@ -6387,7 +6390,7 @@ static void kvm_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn, > > > > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->scheduled_out, true); > > > > - if (current->on_rq && vcpu->wants_to_run) { > > + if (se_runnable(¤t->se) && vcpu->wants_to_run) { > > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->preempted, true); > > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true); > > } > > Why is that deemed "obviously not appropriate"? ->on_rq in and of > itself meaning only "on rq" doesn't seem like a bad thing. Doh, my wording was unclear. I didn't mean the logic was inappropriate, I meant that KVM shouldn't be poking into an internal sched/ helper.