On Fri, May 24, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> > @@ -1548,6 +1548,9 @@ static void svm_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> > struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> > struct svm_cpu_data *sd = per_cpu_ptr(&svm_data, cpu);
> > + if (vcpu->scheduled_out && !kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> > + shrink_ple_window(vcpu);
> > +
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -1517,6 +1517,9 @@ void vmx_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> > {
> > struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> > + if (vcpu->scheduled_out && !kvm_pause_in_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> > + shrink_ple_window(vcpu);
> > +
>
> Nit: Perhaps we need a kvm_x86_ops::shrink_ple_window()? :-)
Heh, that duplicate code annoys me too. The problem is the "old" window value
comes from the VMCS/VMCB, so either we'd end up with multiple kvm_x86_ops, or
we'd only be able to consolidate the scheduled_out + kvm_pause_in_guest() code,
which isn't all that interesting.
Aha! Actually, VMX already open codes the functionality provided by VCPU_EXREG_*,
e.g. has vmx->ple_window_dirty. If we add VCPU_EXREG_PLE_WINDOW, then the info
get be made available to common x86 code without having to add new hooks. And
that would also allow moving the guts of handle_pause()/pause_interception() to
common code, i.e. will also allow deduplicating the "grow" side of things.
