On 2011-09-02 09:48, Sasha Levin wrote:
> The RH bit exists in the message address register (lower 32 bits of
> the address).
>
> The bit indicates whether the message should go to the processor which was
> indicated in the destination ID bits, or whether it should go to the
> processor running at the lowest priority.
>
> Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> index 9f614b4..0ba3a3d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,22 @@ int kvm_set_msi(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> irq.level = 1;
> irq.shorthand = 0;
>
> - /* TODO Deal with RH bit of MSI message address */
> + /*
> + * If the RH bit is set, we'll deliver to the processor running
> + * at the lowest priority.
> + */
> + if (e->msi.address_lo & MSI_ADDR_REDIRECTION_LOWPRI) {
> + irq.delivery_mode = MSI_DATA_DELIVERY_LOWPRI;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * If the RH bit is not set, we'll deliver to the specific
> + * processor mentioned in destination ID, and ignore the DM
> + * bit.
> + */
> + irq.dest_mode = MSI_ADDR_DEST_MODE_PHYSICAL;
> + irq.delivery_mode = MSI_DATA_DELIVERY_FIXED;
> + }
> +
> return kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(kvm, NULL, &irq);
> }
>
Do you happen have a kvm unit test for this? Or how did you validate the
change? It doesn't look incorrect to me, I'd just like to check it QEMU
as well which apparently already has the logic above but also some
contradictory comment.
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
