lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: x86: hyper-v: always advertise HV_STIMER_DIRECT_MODE_AVAILABLE
Date
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> On 29/09/20 12:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Sorry for the late reply. I think this is making things worse. It's
>>> obviously okay to add a system KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID, and I guess
>>> it makes sense to have bits in there that require to enable a
>>> capability. For example, KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID has a couple bits such
>>> as X2APIC, that we return even if they require in-kernel irqchip.
>>>
>>> For the vCPU version however we should be able to copy the returned
>>> leaves to KVM_SET_CPUID2, meaning that unsupported features should be
>>> masked.
>> What I don't quite like about exposing HV_STIMER_DIRECT_MODE_AVAILABLE
>> conditionally is that we're requiring userspace to have a certain
>> control flow: first, it needs to create irqchip and only then call
>> KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID or it won't know that
>> HV_STIMER_DIRECT_MODE_AVAILABLE is supported.
>>
>> Also, are you only concerned about HV_STIMER_DIRECT_MODE_AVAILABLE? E.g.
>> PATCH3 of this series is somewhat similar, it exposes eVMCS even when
>> the corresponding CAP wasn't enabled.
>
> All of them, but this was only about the vCPU ioctl. I agree with you
> that the system ioctl should return everything unconditionally.
>
> But perhaps the best thing to do is to deprecate the vCPU ioctl and just
> leave it as is with all its quirks.
>

Ok, I'll do exactly that. I'm not sure if there are any
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID users out there bisedes QEMU/selftest but
let's take the 'safest' approach.

--
Vitaly

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-29 13:32    [W:0.069 / U:4.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site