> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf
> Of Babu Moger
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:38 AM
> To: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>; Jim Mattson
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>; Wanpeng Li
> <[email protected]>; Sean Christopherson
> <[email protected]>; kvm list <[email protected]>; Joerg
> Roedel <[email protected]>; the arch/x86 maintainers <[email protected]>; LKML
> <[email protected]>; Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>; Borislav
> Petkov <[email protected]>; H . Peter Anvin <[email protected]>; Thomas Gleixner
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 03/11] KVM: SVM: Change intercept_dr to generic
> intercepts
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:12 PM
> > To: Jim Mattson <[email protected]>; Moger, Babu
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>; Wanpeng Li
> > <[email protected]>; Sean Christopherson
> > <[email protected]>; kvm list <[email protected]>;
> > Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>; the arch/x86 maintainers
> > <[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>; Ingo Molnar
> > <[email protected]>; Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>; H . Peter Anvin
> > <[email protected]>; Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] KVM: SVM: Change intercept_dr to generic
> > intercepts
> >
> > On 29/07/20 01:59, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > >> case SVM_EXIT_READ_DR0 ... SVM_EXIT_WRITE_DR7: {
> > >> - u32 bit = 1U << (exit_code - SVM_EXIT_READ_DR0);
> > >> - if (svm->nested.ctl.intercept_dr & bit)
> > >> + if (__is_intercept(&svm->nested.ctl.intercepts,
> > >> + exit_code))
> > > Can I assume that all of these __<function> calls will become
> > > <function> calls when the grand unification is done? (Maybe I should
> > > just look ahead.)
> > >
> >
> > The <function> calls are reserved for the active VMCB while these take a
> vector.
> > Probably it would be nicer to call them vmcb_{set,clr,is}_intercept
> > and make them take a struct vmcb_control_area*, but apart from that
> > the concept is fine
> >
> > Once we do the vmcb01/vmcb02/vmcb12 work, there will not be anymore
> > &svm->nested.ctl (replaced by &svm->nested.vmcb12->ctl) and we will be
> > able to change them to take a struct vmcb*. Then is_intercept would
> > for example be
> > simply:
> Yea. True. It makes the code even cleaner. Also we can avoid calling
> recalc_intercepts every time we set or clear a bit inside the same
> function(like
> init_vmcb).
>
> Let me try to understand.
>
> vmcb01 is &svm->vmcb->control;l
> vmcb02 is &svm->nested.hsave->control
> vmcb12 is &svm->nested.ctl;
>
> The functions set_intercept and clr_intercept calls get_host_vmcb to get the
> vmcb address.
I will move the get_host_vmcb inside the caller and then call
vmcb_set_intercept/vmcb_clr_intercept/vmcb_is_intercept directly.
I will re post the series. This will change the whole series a little bit.
Jim has already reviewed some of the patches. But I probably cannot use
"Reviewed-by" if I change the patches too much. thanks
>
> static inline struct vmcb *get_host_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm) {
> if (is_guest_mode(&svm->vcpu))
> return svm->nested.hsave;
> else
> return svm->vmcb;
> }
>
> I need to study little bit when is_guest_mode Is on or off. Let me take a
> look at.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> > return vmcb_is_intercept(svm->vmcb, nr);
> >
> > as expected.
> >
> > Paolo
