Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 12:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/24/2010 12:13 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I see. Won't we hit the same issue when we call pic functions from
>>>>> atomic context during the guest entry sequence?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If there are such call paths, for sure. What concrete path(s) do you
>>>> have in mind?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> vcpu_enter_guest() -> inject_pending_event() ->
>>> kvm_cpu_{has,get}_interrupt() -> various pic functions if you're unlucky.
>>>
>> But do they kick anyone or just check/pull information?
>
> Probably not, kicking should be a side effect (or rather the main
> effect) of queueing an interrupt, not dequeuing it.
>
>> Never saw any
>> warnings during my tests last year (granted: with older -rt and kvm
>> versions).
>>
>
> Well, most guests kill the pic early on. Will apply the patch.
>
I think it needs some extension: pic_irq_request should only schedule a
wake up on a rising edge of the PIC output.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
