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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230512233127.804012-1-seanjc@google.com> <20230512233127.804012-2-seanjc@google.com>
 <cfed942fc767fa7b2fabc68a3357a7b95bd6a589.camel@amazon.com>
 <871qbud5f9.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <a02b40d3d9ae5b3037b9a9d5921cfb0144ab5610.camel@amazon.com>
 <7e30cfc2359dfef39d038e3734f7e5e3d9e82d68.camel@amazon.com>
 <87wmtk9u46.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <cf9e15bf3da411ada1c5b2bbdbfdea836029a5e1.camel@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf9e15bf3da411ada1c5b2bbdbfdea836029a5e1.camel@amazon.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 14:38:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgObfZKOkUn3++g-YMkv7bsmKU77Y88NPBqt-5XoRJFLXDEFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: Use syscore_ops instead of reboot_notifier to
 hook restart/shutdown
To:     "Gowans, James" <jgowans@amazon.com>
Cc:     "Graf (AWS), Alexander" <graf@amazon.de>,
        "seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "ebiederm@xmission.com" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7ZuaGVyciwgSmFuIEgu?= <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
        "yuzenghui@huawei.com" <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        "kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "oliver.upton@linux.dev" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        "suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        "chenhuacai@kernel.org" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        "atishp@atishpatra.org" <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
        "aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com" <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
        "anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:51=E2=80=AFAM Gowans, James <jgowans@amazon.com> =
wrote:
> 1. Does hardware_disable_nolock actually need to be done on *every* CPU
> or would the offlined ones be fine to ignore because they will be reset
> and the VMXE bit will be cleared that way? With cooperative CPU handover
> we probably do indeed want to do this on every CPU and not depend on
> resetting.

Offlined and onlined CPUs are handled via the CPU hotplug state machine,
which calls into kvm_online_cpu and kvm_offline_cpu.

Paolo