Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:32:02 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/10] KVM: SVM: Make lazy FPU switching work with nested svm |
| |
On 02/18/2010 01:38 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > TDB. > >
...
> @@ -973,6 +973,7 @@ static void svm_decache_cr4_guest_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > static void update_cr0_intercept(struct vcpu_svm *svm) > { > + struct vmcb *vmcb = svm->vmcb; > ulong gcr0 = svm->vcpu.arch.cr0; > u64 *hcr0 =&svm->vmcb->save.cr0; > > @@ -984,11 +985,25 @@ static void update_cr0_intercept(struct vcpu_svm *svm) > > > if (gcr0 == *hcr0&& svm->vcpu.fpu_active) { > - svm->vmcb->control.intercept_cr_read&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > - svm->vmcb->control.intercept_cr_write&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + vmcb->control.intercept_cr_read&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + vmcb->control.intercept_cr_write&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + if (is_nested(svm)) { > + struct vmcb *hsave = svm->nested.hsave; > + > + hsave->control.intercept_cr_read&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + hsave->control.intercept_cr_write&= ~INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + vmcb->control.intercept_cr_read |= svm->nested.intercept_cr_read; > + vmcb->control.intercept_cr_write |= svm->nested.intercept_cr_write; >
Why are the last two lines needed?
> + } > } else { > svm->vmcb->control.intercept_cr_read |= INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > svm->vmcb->control.intercept_cr_write |= INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + if (is_nested(svm)) { > + struct vmcb *hsave = svm->nested.hsave; > + > + hsave->control.intercept_cr_read |= INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + hsave->control.intercept_cr_write |= INTERCEPT_CR0_MASK; > + } > } > } >
Maybe it's better to call update_cr0_intercept() after a vmexit instead, to avoid this repetition, and since the if () may take a different branch for the nested guest and guest cr0.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |