Re: [PATCH 6/6] KVM: VMX: enable IPI virtualization

[Zeng Guang]

On 7/16/2021 5:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/07/21 08:48, Zeng Guang wrote:
> > +    if (!(_cpu_based_3rd_exec_control & TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT))
> > +        enable_ipiv = 0;
> > +
> >       }
>
> Please move this to hardware_setup(), using a new function 
> cpu_has_vmx_ipiv() in vmx/capabilities.h.
ok, we will change it to follow current framework.
> >      if (_cpu_based_exec_control & 
> > CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_TERTIARY_CONTROLS) {
> > -        u64 opt3 = 0;
> > +        u64 opt3 = enable_ipiv ? TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT : 0;
> >          u64 min3 = 0;
>
> I like the idea of changing opt3, but it's different from how 
> setup_vmcs_config works for the other execution controls.  Let me 
> think if it makes sense to clean this up, and move the handling of 
> other module parameters from hardware_setup() to setup_vmcs_config().
May be an exception for ipiv feature ?
> > +
> > +    if (vmx->ipiv_active)
> > +        install_pid(vmx);
>
> This should be if (enable_ipiv) instead, I think.
>
> In fact, in all other places that are using vmx->ipiv_active, you can 
> actually replace it with enable_ipiv; they are all reached only with 
> kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu) == true.
enable_ipiv as a global variable indicates the hardware capability to 
enable IPIv. Each VM may have different IPIv configuration according to 
kvm_vcpu_apicv_active status. So we use ipiv_active per VM to enclose 
IPIv related operations.
> > +    if (!enable_apicv) {
> > +        enable_ipiv = 0;
> > +        vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl &= ~TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT;
> > +    }
>
> The assignment to vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl should not be 
> necessary; kvm_vcpu_apicv_active will always be false in that case and 
> IPI virtualization would never be enabled.
We originally intend to make vmcs_config consistent with the actual ipiv 
capability and decouple it from other factors. As you mentioned , it's 
not necessary to update vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl in this 
case. We will remove it.

Thanks.

> Paolo