On 2011-01-31 17:50, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> 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?
See the my other mail: It supports it, but it apparently doesn't expects
this to happen.
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
