> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > index fdc05ae..b15e32a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > @@ -1454,11 +1454,18 @@ static void start_apic_timer(struct kvm_lapic
> > *apic) /* lapic timer in tsc deadline mode */
> > u64 tscdeadline = apic->lapic_timer.tscdeadline;
> >
> > - if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer &&
> > - !kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer(apic->vcpu,
> > tscdeadline)) {
> > - apic->lapic_timer.hv_timer_in_use = true;
> > - trace_kvm_hv_timer_state(apic->vcpu->vcpu_id,
> > + if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer) {
> > + if (kvm_x86_ops->set_hv_timer(apic->vcpu,
>
> Would it be better that if set_hv_timer fails, we clear the vmx timer (i.e.
> the
> VMCS field) before return the failure? I'm not sure if it make sense to clear
> the previous setup if a new setup fails, although it seems OK for me, since
> we have to cancel the hv_timer anyway.
Good question. I think we should abstract a little the set_hv_timer and
cancel_hv_timer calls, for example with a new function start_hv_tscdeadline.
It's also simpler to avoid the race window by disabling interrupts around the
calls to set_hv_timer and hrtimer_cancel. I'll see what I can come up with.
Paolo
