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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: X86: Ultra fast single target IPI fastpath
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@tencent.com>
References: <f51251cc-885e-2f7a-b18d-faa76db15b87@redhat.com>
 <20200410174703.1138-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <a7530d71-dd57-5a22-ee34-da65caa3eea8@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 20:43:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200410174703.1138-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/04/20 19:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> If that's open-coded in vmx_vcpu_run(), I'm ok with doing the
> fast-IPI handler immediately after the failure checks.
> 
> And fast-IPI aside, the code could use a bit of optimization to
> prioritize successful VM-Enter, which would slot in nicely as a prep
> patch.

Yes, I agree with these.

Paolo