On 04/04/2013 07:54:20 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.04.2013, at 03:57, Scott Wood wrote:
> + if (opp->mpic_mode_mask == GCR_MODE_PROXY)
Shouldn't this be an &?
The way the mode field was originally documented was a two-bit field,
where 0b11 was external proxy, and 0b10 was reserved. If we use & it
would have to be:
if ((opp->mpic_mode_mask & GCR_MODE_PROXY) == GCR_MODE_PROXY)
...
Simply testing "opp->mpic_mode_mask & GCR_MODE_PROXY" would return true
in the case of GCR_MODE_MIXED.
In MPIC 4.3 external proxy is defined as a separate bit (GCR[CI]) that
is ignored if the mixed-mode bit (GCR[M]) is not set, which makes it a
bit more legitimate to view it as a bitmap. Still, I doubt we'll see
new mode bits.
> @@ -460,6 +464,13 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> tasklet_kill(&vcpu->arch.tasklet);
>
> kvmppc_remove_vcpu_debugfs(vcpu);
> +
> + switch (vcpu->arch.irq_type) {
> + case KVMPPC_IRQ_MPIC:
> + kvmppc_mpic_put(vcpu->arch.mpic);
This doesn't tell the MPIC that this exact CPU is getting killed.
What if we hotplug remove just a single CPU? Don't we have to
deregister the CPU with the MPIC?
If we ever support hot vcpu removal, yes. We'd probably need some MPIC
code changes to accommodate that, and we wouldn't currently have a way
to test it, so I'd rather make it obviously not supported for now.
-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
