Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:23:13 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86/VMX: add kvm_vmx_reinject_nmi_irq()
 for NMI/IRQ reinjection
Message-ID: <Y25a0Z2tOMWYZs4j@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221110061545.1531-1-xin3.li@intel.com>
 <20221110061545.1531-6-xin3.li@intel.com>
 <Y2y+YgBUYuUHbPtd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <BN6PR1101MB2161976800EB14B74A24D9F3A8019@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y24SoNKZtj/NPSGy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6097036e-063f-5175-72b2-8935b12af853@redhat.com>
 <Y24908NWCdzUNqI0@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6fd26a70-3774-6ae7-73ea-4653aee106f0@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <6fd26a70-3774-6ae7-73ea-4653aee106f0@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 01:48:26PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/11/22 13:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 01:04:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On Intel you can optionally make it hold onto IRQs, but NMIs are always
> > > eaten by the VMEXIT and have to be reinjected manually.
> > 
> > That 'optionally' thing worries me -- as in, KVM is currently
> > opting-out?
> 
> Yes, because "If the “process posted interrupts” VM-execution control is 1,
> the “acknowledge interrupt on exit” VM-exit control is 1" (SDM 26.2.1.1,
> checks on VM-Execution Control Fields).  Ipse dixit.  Posted interrupts are
> available and used on all processors since I think Ivy Bridge.

(imagine the non-coc compliant reaction here)

So instead of fixing it, they made it worse :-(

And now FRED is arguably making it worse again, and people wonder why I
hate virt...