On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 08:10:48AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > Anyways, I don't see any reason to make this an arch specific request.
> > > After making it non-arch specific, probably we need an atomic counter for the
> > > start/stop requests in the common helpers. So I just made it TDX-specific to
> > > keep it simple in the RFC.
> >
> > Oh, right. I didn't consider the complications with multiple users. Hrm.
> >
> > Actually, this doesn't need to be a request. KVM_REQ_OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE will
> > forces vCPUs to exit, at which point tdx_vcpu_run() can return immediately with
> > EXIT_FASTPATH_EXIT_HANDLED, which is all that kvm_vcpu_exit_request() does. E.g.
> > have the zap side set wait_for_sept_zap before blasting the request to all vCPU,
> Hmm, the wait_for_sept_zap also needs to be set and unset in all vCPUs except
> the current one.
Why can't it be a VM-wide flag? The current vCPU isn't going to do VP.ENTER, is
it? If it is, I've definitely missed something :-)
> > /* TDX exit handle takes care of this error case. */
> > if (unlikely(tdx->state != VCPU_TD_STATE_INITIALIZED)) {
> > tdx->vp_enter_ret = TDX_SW_ERROR;
> > @@ -921,6 +924,9 @@ fastpath_t tdx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool force_immediate_exit)
> > return EXIT_FASTPATH_NONE;
> > }
> >
> > + if (unlikely(to_kvm_tdx(vcpu->kvm)->wait_for_sept_zap))
> > + return EXIT_FASTPATH_EXIT_HANDLED;
> > +
> > trace_kvm_entry(vcpu, force_immediate_exit);
> >
> > if (pi_test_on(&tdx->pi_desc)) {
> Thanks for this suggestion.
> But what's the advantage of this checking wait_for_sept_zap approach?
> Is it to avoid introducing an arch specific request?
Yes, and unless I've missed something, "releasing" vCPUs can be done by clearing
a single variable.
