Re: [PATCH 08/10] MCE: Relay UCR MCE to guest

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/20/2010 02:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:

+}
+
  static void qemu_kvm_eat_signal(CPUState *env, int timeout)
  {
      struct timespec ts;
      int r, e;
      siginfo_t siginfo;
      sigset_t waitset;
+    sigset_t chkset;

      ts.tv_sec = timeout / 1000;
      ts.tv_nsec = (timeout % 1000) * 1000000;

      sigemptyset(&waitset);
      sigaddset(&waitset, SIG_IPI);
+    sigaddset(&waitset, SIGBUS);

-    qemu_mutex_unlock(&qemu_global_mutex);
-    r = sigtimedwait(&waitset,&siginfo,&ts);
-    e = errno;
-    qemu_mutex_lock(&qemu_global_mutex);
+    do {
+        qemu_mutex_unlock(&qemu_global_mutex);

-    if (r == -1&&  !(e == EAGAIN || e == EINTR)) {
-        fprintf(stderr, "sigtimedwait: %s\n", strerror(e));
-        exit(1);
-    }
+        r = sigtimedwait(&waitset,&siginfo,&ts);
+        e = errno;
+
+        qemu_mutex_lock(&qemu_global_mutex);
+
+        if (r == -1&&  !(e == EAGAIN || e == EINTR)) {
+            fprintf(stderr, "sigtimedwait: %s\n", strerror(e));
+            exit(1);
+        }
+
+        switch (r) {
+        case SIGBUS:
+#ifdef TARGET_I386
+ if (kvm_on_sigbus_vcpu(env, siginfo.si_code, siginfo.si_addr))
+#endif
+                sigbus_reraise();
+            break;
+        default:
+            break;
+        }
+
+        r = sigpending(&chkset);
+        if (r == -1) {
+            fprintf(stderr, "sigpending: %s\n", strerror(e));
+            exit(1);
+        }
+ } while (sigismember(&chkset, SIG_IPI) || sigismember(&chkset, SIGBUS));
  }

I don't understand why this loop is needed but we specifically wait for a signal to get delivered that's either SIG_IPI or SIGBUS. We then check whether a SIG_IPI or SIGBUS is pending and loop waiting for signals again.

Shouldn't we be looping on just sigismember(SIGBUS)?

BTW, we're no longer respecting timeout because we're not adjusting ts after each iteration.

I think this is important too. The last time I went through the code and played around here, it wasn't possible to set timeout to a very, very large value because there are still things that we poll for (like whether shutdown has occurred). If we loop indefinitely without reducing ts, we can potentially recreate an infinite timeout which means we won't catch any of the events we poll for. This would be a very, very subtle bug to track down.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux