On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:10:07AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:03:58AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > > > Also, as Avi mentioned it would be better to avoid this. Is it not > > > possible to disallow migration while interrupt shadow is present? > > > > Which means disallowing user space exists while the shadow it set? Or > > should we introduce some flag for user space that tells it "do not > > migration now, resume the guest till next exit"? > > > I think disabling migration is a slippery slope. Guest may abuse it. May > be it will be hard to do with interrupt shadow, but the mechanism will be > used for other cases too. I remember there was an argument that we > should not migrate while vcpu is in a nested guest mode. Agree that guest may abuse it. Better to save/restore blocking-by-sti/by-mov-ss individually. I was thinking the writeback of interrupt shadow / interruptibility state would be too complicated (eg necessary to care about ordering, etc), but now i see its handled in kernel (inject_pending_event and friends). -- 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
