On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:09:17PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 11/08/2011 11:11 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >Currently we check prior to returning from a lightweight exit, > >but not prior to initial entry. > > > >book3s already does a similar test. > > > >Signed-off-by: Scott Wood<scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 10 +++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >index b642200..9c78589 100644 > >--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >@@ -322,11 +322,19 @@ int kvmppc_vcpu_run(struct kvm_run *kvm_run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > } > > > > local_irq_disable(); > >+ > >+ if (signal_pending(current)) { > > Any reason you're doing this after irq_disable()? If we get a signal after the check, we want to be sure that we don't receive the reschedule IPI until after we're in the guest, so that it will cause another signal check. -Scott -- 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