Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Message-ID: <c6939a0d710438c4b3d3d98fb7b81030e9d01a0f.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: x86: refactor req_immediate_exit logic
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:41:09 +0300
In-Reply-To: <93396a36-30fe-74d6-d812-a93dafa771cb@redhat.com>
References: <20230924124410.897646-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
         <20230924124410.897646-2-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
         <93396a36-30fe-74d6-d812-a93dafa771cb@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

> On 9/24/23 14:44, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > +	if (vcpu->arch.req_immediate_exit)
> >   		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> > -		static_call(kvm_x86_request_immediate_exit)(vcpu);
> > -	}
> 
> Is it enough for your use case to add a new tracepoint here, instead of 
> adding req_immediate_exit to both entry and exit?


I prefer if possible to keep the req_immediate_exit field on entry only,
as it is pretty much an extension to the injected event data which I also
added to kvm_entry() tracepoint.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

> 
> Paolo
>