DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com B11E8C07643E
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: INVPCID support
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <1501161639-9707-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <0b82ca85-7b3e-9dc4-a102-24d0e9033dcd@redhat.com>
 <42be1e05-b6e4-42db-5ed8-276d61c4334d@redhat.com>
 <60a8347a-744d-47d3-e53b-3218f5c50623@redhat.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ae1bebea-43d1-6c69-ff0d-c1168450a202@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:35:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60a8347a-744d-47d3-e53b-3218f5c50623@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1110
Lines: 27

On 01/08/2017 13:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>>> Can't we rewrite that a little bit, avoiding that "best" handling
>>> (introducing guest_cpuid_disable_invpcid() and guest_cpuid_has_invpcid())
>>>
>>> bool invpcid_enabled = guest_cpuid_has_pcid(vcpu) &&
>>> 		       guest_cpuid_has_invpcid();
>>>
>>> if (!invpcid_enabled) {
>>> 	secondary_exec_ctl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_INVPCID;
>>> 	/* make sure there is no no INVPCID without PCID */
>>> 	guest_cpuid_disable_invpcid(vcpu);
>>> }
>>
>> I don't know... if you need a comment, it means the different structure
>> of the code doesn't spare many doubts from the reader.  And the code
>> doesn't become much simpler since you have to handle "nested" anyway.
>> What I tried to do was to mimic as much as possible the rdtscp case, but
>> it cannot be exactly the same due to the interaction between PCID and
>> INVPCID.
> 
> It's more about the handling of best here, which can be avoided quite
> easily as I showed (by encapsulating how cpuids are looked up/modified).

Yeah, I don't like either option. :)  Luckily there is a second maintainer!

Paolo