On 11/11/2011 04:32 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:09:17PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 11/08/2011 11:11 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Currently we check prior to returning from a lightweight exit,
but not prior to initial entry.
book3s already does a similar test.
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood<scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index b642200..9c78589 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -322,11 +322,19 @@ int kvmppc_vcpu_run(struct kvm_run *kvm_run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
}
local_irq_disable();
+
+ if (signal_pending(current)) {
Any reason you're doing this after irq_disable()?
If we get a signal after the check, we want to be sure that we don't
receive the reschedule IPI until after we're in the guest, so that it
will cause another signal check.
Makes sense. So the current book3s implementation is wrong?
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
