Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135854-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: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:56:13 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, erdemaktas@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 108/130] KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV HLT hypercall
Message-ID: <20240408185613.GX2444378@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <c083430632ba9e80abd09bccd5609fb3cd9d9c63.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <ZgzMH3944ZaBx8B3@chao-email>
 <Zg1seIaTmM94IyR8@google.com>
 <20240404232537.GV2444378@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <ZhIX7K0WK+gYtcan@chao-email>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhIX7K0WK+gYtcan@chao-email>

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 11:50:04AM +0800,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:

> >> > >+	union tdx_vcpu_state_details details;
> >> > >+	struct vcpu_tdx *tdx = to_tdx(vcpu);
> >> > >+
> >> > >+	if (ret || vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
> >> > >+		return true;
> >> > 
> >> > Question: why mp_state matters here?
> >> > >+
> >> > >+	if (tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt)
> >> > >+		return false;
> >> > 
> >> > Shouldn't we move this into vt_interrupt_allowed()? VMX calls the function to
> >> > check if interrupt is disabled.
> >
> >Chao, are you suggesting to implement tdx_interrupt_allowed() as
> >"EXIT_REASON_HLT && a0" instead of "return true"?
> >I don't think it makes sense because it's rare case and we can't avoid spurious
> >wakeup for TDX case.
> 
> Yes. KVM differeniates "interrupt allowed" from "has interrupt", e.g.,
> 
> static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> ...
> 
> 	if (kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> 	    (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) ||
> 	    kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt(vcpu)))
> 		return true;
> 
> 
> I think tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt() mixes them together, which isn't
> good.

Your point is code clarity.  Ok, we can code in that way. I don't expect any
performance difference.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>