Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Analyze is_guest_mode() in svm_vcpu_run()
To:     Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
References: <1600066548-4343-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <b39b1599-9e1e-8ef6-1b97-a4910d9c3784@oracle.com>
From:   Haiwei Li <lihaiwei.kernel@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <425468c9-15f0-9486-d317-fd25c38a714a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:29:39 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b39b1599-9e1e-8ef6-1b97-a4910d9c3784@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 20/9/15 04:43, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:
> 
> On 9/13/20 11:55 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
>>
>> Analyze is_guest_mode() in svm_vcpu_run() instead of 
>> svm_exit_handlers_fastpath()
>> in conformity with VMX version.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 7 +++++--
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> index 3da5b2f..009035a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -3393,8 +3393,7 @@ static void svm_cancel_injection(struct kvm_vcpu 
>> *vcpu)
>>   static fastpath_t svm_exit_handlers_fastpath(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   {
>> -    if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
>> -        to_svm(vcpu)->vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_MSR &&
>> +    if (to_svm(vcpu)->vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_MSR &&
>>           to_svm(vcpu)->vmcb->control.exit_info_1)
>>           return handle_fastpath_set_msr_irqoff(vcpu);
>> @@ -3580,6 +3579,10 @@ static __no_kcsan fastpath_t 
>> svm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>           svm_handle_mce(svm);
>>       svm_complete_interrupts(svm);
>> +
>> +    if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
>> +        return EXIT_FASTPATH_NONE;
>> +
>>       exit_fastpath = svm_exit_handlers_fastpath(vcpu);
>>       return exit_fastpath;
> 
> Not related to your changes, but should we get rid of the variable 
> 'exit_fastpath' and just do,
> 
>          return svm_exit_handler_fastpath(vcpu);
> 
> It seems the variable isn't used anywhere else and svm_vcpu_run() 
> doesn't return from anywhere else either.
> 
> Also, svm_exit_handlers_fastpath() doesn't have any other caller. Should 
> we get rid of it as well ?

I will do this soon, thanks.