On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 02:14:17PM +0200, Mohammed Gamal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti<mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Mohammed Gamal wrote: > >> - Change returned handle_invalid_guest_state() to return relevant exit codes > >> - Move triggering the emulation from vmx_vcpu_run() to vmx_handle_exit() > >> - Return to userspace instead of repeatedly trying to emulate instructions that have already failed > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Gamal <m.gamal005@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Mohammed, > > > > The handle_invalid_guest_state loop is potentially problematic. It would > > be more appropriate to use the __vcpu_run loop. > > > > Can't you set vmx->emulation_required depending on the result > > of one call to emulate_instruction and get rid of the while > > (!guest_state_valid(vcpu)) loop? > > > > Invalid state emulation is VMX-specfic, while the __vcpu_run loop is > independent of the virtualization extension (defined in x86.c), no? > AMD SVM can comforably run hosts in big-real mode and thus it doesn't > have the notion of a guest going to an invalid state because of mode > switching, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to move emulation into > a generic layer. Please correct me if I am wrong Right. But all i am asking is to emulate one instruction at a time in handle_invalid_guest_state, instead of looping until guest_state_valid(vcpu). So you get rid of schedule(), the check for signal_pending, etc. -- 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
