On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:42:06PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/12/19 20:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 03/12/19 13:27, Jack Wang wrote:
> >>>>> Should we simply revert the patch, maybe also
> >>>>> 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both of them are from one big patchset:
> >>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10616179/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Revert both patches recover the regression I see on kvm-unit-tests.
> >>>> Greg already included the patches that the bot missed, so it's okay.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paolo
> >>>>
> >>> Sorry, I think I gave wrong information initially, it's 9fe573d539a8
> >>> ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
> >>> which caused regression.
> >>>
> >>> Should we revert or there's following up fix we should backport?
> >>
> >> Hmm, let's revert all four. This one, the two follow-ups and 9fe573d539a8.
> >
> > 4? I see three patches here, the 2 follow-up patches that I applied to
> > the queue, and the "original" backport of b7031fd40fcc ("KVM: nVMX:
> > reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS") which showed up in the
> > 4.14.157 and 4.19.87 kernels.
>
> The fourth is commit 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when
> switching loaded VMCS"), which was also autoselected.
Ah, thanks, I missed that. Should all now be fixed up here, and in the
4.14.y tree.
greg k-h
