On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:41:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-31 17:38, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 04:40:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-01-31 14:04, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 2011-01-31 12:36, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> On 2011-01-31 11:08, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/27/2011 03:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>> Align with qemu-kvm and prepare for IO exit fix: There is no need to run
> >>>>>> kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events in the inner VCPU loop. Any state change
> >>>>>> this service processes will first cause an exit from kvm_cpu_exec
> >>>>>> anyway. And we will have to reenter the kernel on IO exits
> >>>>>> unconditionally, something that the current logic prevents.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> kvm-all.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >>>>>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
> >>>>>> index 5bfa8c0..46ecc1c 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/kvm-all.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
> >>>>>> @@ -892,6 +892,12 @@ int kvm_cpu_exec(CPUState *env)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DPRINTF("kvm_cpu_exec()\n");
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> + if (kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events(env)) {
> >>>>>> + env->exit_request = 0;
> >>>>>> + env->exception_index = EXCP_HLT;
> >>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> do {
> >>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_IOTHREAD
> >>>>>> if (env->exit_request) {
> >>>>>> @@ -901,11 +907,6 @@ int kvm_cpu_exec(CPUState *env)
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We check for ->exit_request here
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> #endif
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if (kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events(env)) {
> >>>>>> - ret = 0;
> >>>>>> - break;
> >>>>>> - }
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But this checks for ->interrupt_request. What ensures that we exit when
> >>>>> ->interrupt_request is set?
> >>>>
> >>>> Good question, need to check again. But if that turns out to be an
> >>>> issue, qemu-kvm would be broken as well. I'm just aligning the code here.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The only thing we miss by moving process_irqchip_events is a self-INIT
> >>> of an AP - if such thing exists in real life. In that case, the AP would
> >>> cause a reset of itself, followed by a transition to HALT state.
> >>
> >> I checked again with the Intel spec, and a self-INIT is invalid (at
> >> least when specified via shorthand). So I'm under the impression now
> >> that we can safely ignore this case and leave the patch as is.
> >>
> >> Any different views?
> >>
> > IIRC if you don't use shorthand you can send INIT to self.
>
> We didn't care so far (in qemu-kvm), do you think we should?
>
Doesn't kernel lapic emulation support this?
--
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
