On 2011-11-29 22:36, Eric B Munson wrote:
> Often when a guest is stopped from the qemu console, it will report spurious
> soft lockup warnings on resume. There are kernel patches being discussed that
> will give the host the ability to tell the guest that it is being stopped and
> should ignore the soft lockup warning that generates.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ryanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: avi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> target-i386/kvm.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.c b/target-i386/kvm.c
> index 5bfc21f..defd364 100644
> --- a/target-i386/kvm.c
> +++ b/target-i386/kvm.c
> @@ -336,12 +336,18 @@ static int kvm_inject_mce_oldstyle(CPUState *env)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void kvm_put_guest_paused(CPUState *penv)
> +{
> + kvm_vcpu_ioctl(penv, KVM_GUEST_PAUSED, 0);
> +}
I see no need in encapsulating this in a separate function.
> +
> static void cpu_update_state(void *opaque, int running, RunState state)
> {
> CPUState *env = opaque;
>
> if (running) {
> env->tsc_valid = false;
> + kvm_put_guest_paused(env);
checkpatch.pl would have asked you to remove this tab.
More general:
Why is this x86-only? If the kernel interface is x86-only, what prevents
making it generic right from the beginning?
Why do we need a new IOCTL for this? Was there no space left in the
kvm_run structure e.g. to pass this flag down on next vcpu execution? No
big deal, just wondering.
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
