> On Jul 15, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 15/07/2019 19:17, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a lot of infrastructure for functionality which is used
>>> exclusively in __{save,restore}_processor_state() on the suspend/resume
>>> path.
>>>
>>> cr8 is an alias of APIC_TASKPRI, and APIC_TASKPRI is saved/restored by
>>> lapic_{suspend,resume}(). Saving and restoring cr8 independently of the
>>> rest of the Local APIC state isn't a clever thing to be doing.
>>>
>>> Delete the suspend/resume cr8 handling, which shrinks the size of struct
>>> saved_context, and allows for the removal of both PVOPS.
>> I think removing the interface for CR8 writes is also good to avoid
>> potential correctness issues, as the SDM says (10.8.6.1 "Interaction of Task
>> Priorities between CR8 and APIC”):
>>
>> "Operating software should implement either direct APIC TPR updates or CR8
>> style TPR updates but not mix them. Software can use a serializing
>> instruction (for example, CPUID) to serialize updates between MOV CR8 and
>> stores to the APIC.”
>>
>> And native_write_cr8() did not even issue a serializing instruction.
>
> Given its location, the one write_cr8() is bounded by two serialising
> operations, so is safe in practice.
That’s what the “potential” in "potential correctness issues” means :)
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
