Sean,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:00:09AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + if (xfer_to_guest_mode_work_pending()) {
>> srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>> - cond_resched();
>> + r = xfer_to_guest_mode(vcpu);
>
> Any reason not to call this xfer_to_guest_mode_work()? Or handle_work(),
> do_work(), etc... Without the "work" part, it looks like a function that
> should be invoked unconditionally. It's obvious that's not the case if
> one looks at the implementation, but it's a bit confusing on the KVM side
> of things.
The reason is probably lazyness. The original approach was to have this
as close as possible to user entry/exit but with the recent changes
vs. instrumentation and RCU this is not longer the case.
I really want to keep the notion of transitioning in the function name,
so xfer_to_guest_mode_handle_work() makes a lot of sense.
I'll change that before merging the lot into the tip tree if your
Reviewed-by still stands with that change made w/o reposting.
Thanks,
tglx
