From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: handle exit due to INVD in VMX Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20101031143635.GW26191@redhat.com> <30710656-1B22-45B9-AC71-7EB744906A6C@suse.de> <20101031182240.GH2764@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43310 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756529Ab0JaS0P convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:26:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101031182240.GH2764@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 31.10.2010, at 11:22, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:00:08AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 31.10.2010, at 07:36, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>> Call into emulator when INVD instruction is executed by a guest. >> >> Why? This is a poor patch description. > Why what? Why we need to handle INVD exit instead of stopping with > unhandled exit error? Ah, so we get the exit already, but don't handle it? That's an important piece of information that belongs in the patch description. Another thing I as a reader would also like to know is where this got triggered, so which guests would break without the patch. I'm also wondering why nobody has seen it before. Is this a regression? Is this exit a side-effect of another feature bit of VMX, so only newer CPUs are affected? Alex