Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-123655-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:10:36 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: isaku.yamahata@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, erdemaktas@google.com,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, tina.zhang@intel.com,
	isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 091/130] KVM: TDX: remove use of struct vcpu_vmx from
 posted_interrupt.c
Message-ID: <20240328211036.GS2444378@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <6c7774a44515d6787c9512cb05c3b305e9b5855c.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <ZgUmdIM67dybDTCn@chao-email>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZgUmdIM67dybDTCn@chao-email>

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:12:36PM +0800,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:26:33AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> >@@ -190,7 +211,8 @@ static bool vmx_needs_pi_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > 	 * notification vector is switched to the one that calls
> > 	 * back to the pi_wakeup_handler() function.
> > 	 */
> >-	return vmx_can_use_ipiv(vcpu) || vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm);
> >+	return (vmx_can_use_ipiv(vcpu) && !is_td_vcpu(vcpu)) ||
> >+		vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm);
> 
> It is better to separate this functional change from the code refactoring.

Agreed. Let's split this patch.


> > }
> > 
> > void vmx_vcpu_pi_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >@@ -200,7 +222,8 @@ void vmx_vcpu_pi_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > 	if (!vmx_needs_pi_wakeup(vcpu))
> > 		return;
> > 
> >-	if (kvm_vcpu_is_blocking(vcpu) && !vmx_interrupt_blocked(vcpu))
> >+	if (kvm_vcpu_is_blocking(vcpu) &&
> >+	    (is_td_vcpu(vcpu) || !vmx_interrupt_blocked(vcpu)))
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> This looks incorrect to me. here we assume interrupt is always enabled for TD.
> But on TDVMCALL(HLT), the guest tells KVM if hlt is called with interrupt
> disabled. KVM can just check that interrupt status passed from the guest.

That's true.  We can complicate this function and HLT emulation.  But I don't
think it's worthwhile because HLT with interrupt masked is rare.  Only for
CPU online.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>