At 02/28/2012 05:34 PM, Jan Kiszka Wrote:
> On 2012-02-28 09:23, Wen Congyang wrote:
>> At 02/27/2012 11:08 PM, Jan Kiszka Wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-27 04:01, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>> We can know the guest is paniced when the guest runs on xen.
>>>> But we do not have such feature on kvm. This patch implemnts
>>>> this feature, and the implementation is the same as xen:
>>>> register panic notifier, and call hypercall when the guest
>>>> is paniced.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>> include/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
>>>> include/linux/kvm_para.h | 1 +
>>>> 6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> index f0c6fd6..b928d1d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> @@ -331,6 +331,17 @@ static struct notifier_block kvm_pv_reboot_nb = {
>>>> .notifier_call = kvm_pv_reboot_notify,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +static int
>>>> +kvm_pv_panic_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long code, void *unused)
>>>> +{
>>>> + kvm_hypercall0(KVM_HC_GUEST_PANIC);
>>>> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct notifier_block kvm_pv_panic_nb = {
>>>> + .notifier_call = kvm_pv_panic_notify,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> You should split up host and guest-side changes.
>>>
>>>> static u64 kvm_steal_clock(int cpu)
>>>> {
>>>> u64 steal;
>>>> @@ -417,6 +428,7 @@ void __init kvm_guest_init(void)
>>>>
>>>> paravirt_ops_setup();
>>>> register_reboot_notifier(&kvm_pv_reboot_nb);
>>>> + atomic_notifier_chain_register(&panic_notifier_list, &kvm_pv_panic_nb);
>>>> for (i = 0; i < KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHSIZE; i++)
>>>> spin_lock_init(&async_pf_sleepers[i].lock);
>>>> if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_ASYNC_PF))
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> index 0b7690e..38b4705 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> @@ -1900,10 +1900,14 @@ static int halt_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>>>>
>>>> static int vmmcall_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>>>> {
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> svm->next_rip = kvm_rip_read(&svm->vcpu) + 3;
>>>> skip_emulated_instruction(&svm->vcpu);
>>>> - kvm_emulate_hypercall(&svm->vcpu);
>>>> - return 1;
>>>> + ret = kvm_emulate_hypercall(&svm->vcpu);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Ignore the error? */
>>>> + return ret == 0 ? 0 : 1;
>>>
>>> Why can't kvm_emulate_hypercall return the right value?
>>
>> kvm_emulate_hypercall() will call kvm_hv_hypercall(), and
>> kvm_hv_hypercall() will return 0 when vcpu's CPL > 0.
>> If vcpu's CPL > 0, does kvm need to exit and tell it to
>> qemu?
>
> No, there is currently no exit to userspace due to hypercalls, neither
> of HV nor KVM kind.
>
> The point is that the return code of kvm_emulate_hypercall is unused so
> far, so you can easily redefine it to encode continue vs. exit to
> userspace. Once someone has different needs, this could still be
> refactored again.
So, it is OK to change the return value of kvm_hv_hypercall() if vcpu's
CPL > 0?
Thanks
Wen Congyang
>
> Jan
>
--
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
