Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:25:05 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS
Message-ID: <20200406202505.GO2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CALCETrVsc-t=tDRPbCg5dWHDY0NFv2zjz12ahD-vnGPn8T+RXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87a74s9ehb.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <87wo7v8g4j.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <877dzu8178.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <37440ade-1657-648b-bf72-2b8ca4ac21ce@redhat.com>
 <871rq199oz.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrUHwd8pNr_ZdFqY8vMjJeMdNyw2C+FL6uOUM98SEE9rNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87d09l73ip.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200309202215.GM12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200406190951.GA19259@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200406190951.GA19259@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 03:09:51PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:22:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:05:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> writes:
> > 
> > > > I'm okay with the save/restore dance, I guess.  It's just yet more
> > > > entry crud to deal with architecture nastiness, except that this
> > > > nastiness is 100% software and isn't Intel/AMD's fault.
> > > 
> > > And we can do it in C and don't have to fiddle with it in the ASM
> > > maze.
> > 
> > Right; I'd still love to kill KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS though, even if
> > we do the save/restore in do_nmi(). That is some wild brain melt. Also,
> > AFAIK none of the distros are actually shipping a PREEMPT=y kernel
> > anyway, so killing it shouldn't matter much.
> 
> It will be nice if we can retain KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS. I have another
> use case outside CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> 
> I am trying to extend async pf interface to also report page fault errors
> to the guest.

Then please start over and design a sane ParaVirt Fault interface. The
current one is utter crap.