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;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     suleiman@google.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Hikaru Nishida <hikalium@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dme@dme.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mlevitsk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 3/4] x86/kvm: Add host side support for virtual
 suspend time injection
In-Reply-To: <2ec642dd-dde6-bee6-3de3-0fa78d288995@redhat.com>
References: <20210806100710.2425336-1-hikalium@chromium.org>
 <20210806190607.v2.3.Ib0cb8ecae99f0ccd0e2814b310adba00b9e81d94@changeid>
 <2ec642dd-dde6-bee6-3de3-0fa78d288995@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:32:13 +0200
Message-ID: <87o89vksiq.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> On 06/08/21 12:07, Hikaru Nishida wrote:
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_VIRT_SUSPEND_TIMING) || \
>> +	defined(CONFIG_KVM_VIRT_SUSPEND_TIMING_GUEST)
>> +#define VIRT_SUSPEND_TIMING_VECTOR	0xec
>> +#endif
>
> No need to use a new vector.  You can rename the existing 
> MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_INT to MSR_KVM_HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_INT or something 
> like that, and add the code to sysvec_kvm_asyncpf_interrupt.

On the host side, I'd vote for keeping MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_INT for async PF
mechanism only for two reasons:
- We may want to use (currently reserved) upper 56 bits of it for new
asyncPF related features (e.g. flags) and it would be unnatural to add
them to 'MSR_KVM_HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_INT'
- We should probably leave it to the guest if it wants to share 'suspend
time' notification interrupt with async PF (and if it actually wants to
get one/another).

On the guest side, it is perfectly fine to reuse
HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR for everything.

-- 
Vitaly