On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:36:58PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-03-13 12:16, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> @@ -5871,8 +5867,8 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>> srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
> >>> kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> >>> vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> >>> - if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu))
> >>> - {
> >>> + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu)) {
> >>> + kvm_apic_accept_events(vcpu);
> >> I think we can drop this. If INIT happens while vcpu is halted it will
> >> become runnable here and kvm_apic_accept_events() will be called in
> >> vcpu_enter_guest().
> >
> > I'm not that sure, but I will recheck carefully.
>
> Doesn't work: If the state was INIT_RECEIVED, we will not process the
> SIPI but reenter kvm_vcpu_block.
Which raises the question. What if vcpu is in INIT_RECEIVED and it
receives NMI. It will make kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() return true but code
will get back to kvm_vcpu_block() again.
> And it's more consistent to process the
> events here IMHO.
>
I would like to minimize a number of places kvm_apic_accept_events()
is called, but it looks like we cannot remove it from here indeed. What
about calling it in "case: KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED"?
--
Gleb.
--
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
