On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:16AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:44:20PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 07/29/2009 03:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 06:45:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> > >>>> Release and re-acquire preemption and IRQ lock in the same order as > >>>> vcpu_enter_guest does. > >>>> > >>> This should happen in vcpu_enter_guest, before it decides to disable > >>> preemption/irqs (so you consolidate the control there). > >>> > >>> Maybe add a new member to x86_ops? > >>> > >> > >> Why don't do something like this ? > >> > > > > The downside is that we're moving a vmx specific hack to common code. > > > > I think this could be simplified if interrupt injection happened outside > > the critical section. This is needed anyway because emulated interrupt > > injection needs to access guest memory (IVT and the stack). > > Why can't it happen now (outside of the critical section), other than > the kvm_vcpu_kick thing? > Depend what part of irq injection we want out of critical section. I guess inject_pending_event() can be called outside of it now. Need to think about others. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
