Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-23603-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:47:27 +0800
From: Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Rely solely on preempted_in_kernel flag
 for directed yield
Message-ID: <20240111124727.wsnmjrh6jdtdbeuo@yy-desk-7060>
References: <20240110003938.490206-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20240110003938.490206-3-seanjc@google.com>
 <20240110075520.psahkt47hoqodqqf@yy-desk-7060>
 <ZZ7QOMxBwHZW8oij@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZZ7QOMxBwHZW8oij@google.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:13:28AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, Yuan Yao wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 04:39:36PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -13093,7 +13092,7 @@ bool kvm_arch_dy_has_pending_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >
> > >  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_preempted_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > > -	return kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu);
> > > +	return vcpu->arch.preempted_in_kernel;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  bool kvm_arch_dy_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > @@ -13116,9 +13115,6 @@ bool kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  	if (vcpu->arch.guest_state_protected)
> > >  		return true;
> > >
> > > -	if (vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu())
> > > -		return vcpu->arch.preempted_in_kernel;
> > > -
> >
> > Now this function accepts vcpu parameter but can only get information from
> > "current" vcpu loaded on hardware for VMX.  I'm not sure whether need
> > "WARN_ON(vcpu != kvm_get_running_vcpu())" here to guard it. i.e.
> > kvm_guest_state() still uses this function (although it did chekcing before).
>
> Eh, I don't think it's worth adding a one-off kvm_get_running_vcpu() sanity check.
> In the vast majority of cases, if VMREAD or VMWRITE is used improperly, the
> instruction will fail at some point due to the pCPU not having any VMCS loaded.
> It's really just cross-vCPU checks that could silently do the wrong thing, and
> those flows are so few and far between that I'm comfortable taking a "just get
> it right stance".
>
> If we want to add sanity checks, I think my vote would be to plumb @vcpu down
> into vmcs_read{16,32,64,l} and add sanity checks there, probably with some sort
> of guard so that the sanity checks can be enabled only for debug kernels.

I got your point.

Reviewed-by: Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@intel.com>