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:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:33:50 -0700
In-Reply-To: <941e45b1-49eb-fcba-20d4-71b1db8041c5@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230808232057.2498287-1-seanjc@google.com> <941e45b1-49eb-fcba-20d4-71b1db8041c5@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ZNUDXsDaRwczONAu@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove WARN sanity check on hypervisor timer
 vs. UNINITIALIZED vCPU
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Yikebaer Aizezi <yikebaer61@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 8/9/23 01:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >   		/*
> > -		 * It should be impossible for the hypervisor timer to be in
> > -		 * use before KVM has ever run the vCPU.
> > +		 * Don't bother switching APIC timer emulation from the
> > +		 * hypervisor timer to the software timer, the only way for the
> > +		 * APIC timer to be active is if userspace stuffed vCPU state,
> > +		 * i.e. put the vCPU into a nonsensical state.  Only an INIT
> > +		 * will transition the vCPU out of UNINITIALIZED (without more
> > +		 * state stuffing from userspace), which will reset the local
> > +		 * APIC and thus smother the timer anyways, i.e. the APIC timer
> 
> "Cancel" is probably more understandable to non-native speakers, though
> undoubtedly less poetic.

I intentionally avoided "cancel" because there is no guaranteed the timer would
actually be canceled (if KVM switched to the software timer).  I am/was trying to
call out that even if the timer expires and pends an interrupts, the interrupt
will ultimately be dropped.

Maybe "squashed"?