On 11/11/2011 09:35 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 04:32 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Makes sense. So the current book3s implementation is wrong?
I think so.
-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
