On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:02 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > > VCPU requests and VCPU blocking right now don't take care of the vSIE > (as it was not necessary until now). But we want to have VCPU requests > that will also be handled before running the vSIE again. > > So let's simulate a SIE entry when entering the vSIE loop and check > for PROG_ flags. The existing infrastructure (e.g. exit_sie()) will then > detect that the SIE (in form of the vSIE execution loop) is running and > properly kick the vSIE CPU, resulting in it leaving the vSIE loop and > therefore the vSIE interception handler, allowing it to handle VCPU > requests. > > E.g. if we want to modify the crycb of the VCPU and make sure that any > masks also get applied to the VSIE crycb shadow (which uses masks from the > VCPU crycb), we will need a way to hinder the vSIE from running and make > sure to process the updated crycb before reentering the vSIE again. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 9 ++++++++- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 1 + > arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) I think that is the RFC version of David's patch, not the v1? Again, not really relevant for reviewing, but I hope that you test the final version.
