On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 1:19 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/3/25 12:09, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > ... > > But Sean's proposal with HLT check before enabling interrupts looks better > > to me. > > "Sean's proposal" being this: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z5l6L3Hen9_Y3SGC@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > ? Yes. > > Is that just intended to quietly fix up a hlt-induced #VE? I'm not sure > that's a good idea. The TDVMCALL is slow, but the #VE is also presumably > quite slow. This is (presumably) getting called in an idle path which is > actually one of the most performance-sensitive things we have in the kernel. > > Or am I missing the point of Sean's proposal? I think you have captured the intent correctly. > > I don't mind having the #VE handler warn about the situation if we end > up there accidentally. > > I'd much rather have a kernel configured in a way that we are pretty > sure there's no path to even call hlt. +1.
