On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:06:13PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:54 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:13:53PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>Simplify kvm_for_each_vcpu with kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic
> >>
> >>From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>Note that we are using APIC_DM_REMRD which has reserved usage.
> >>In future if APIC_DM_REMRD usage is standardized, then we should
> >>find some other way or go back to old method.
> >>
> >>Suggested-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 5 ++++-
> >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >>index e1adbb4..3f5f82e 100644
> >>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >>@@ -706,7 +706,10 @@ out:
> >> break;
> >>
> >> case APIC_DM_REMRD:
> >>- apic_debug("Ignoring delivery mode 3\n");
> >>+ result = 1;
> >>+ vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted = 1;
> >>+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> >>+ kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >> break;
> >>
> >> case APIC_DM_SMI:
> >>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>index 92a9932..b963c86 100644
> >>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >>@@ -5456,27 +5456,14 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> */
> >> static void kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op(struct kvm *kvm, int apicid)
> >> {
> >>- struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> >>- int i;
> >>+ struct kvm_lapic_irq lapic_irq;
> >>
> >>- kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> >>- if (!kvm_apic_present(vcpu))
> >>- continue;
> >>+ lapic_irq.shorthand = 0;
> >>+ lapic_irq.dest_mode = 0;
> >>+ lapic_irq.dest_id = apicid;
> >>
> >>- if (kvm_apic_match_dest(vcpu, 0, 0, apicid, 0))
> >>- break;
> >>- }
> >>- if (vcpu) {
> >>- /*
> >>- * Setting unhalt flag here can result in spurious runnable
> >>- * state when unhalt reset does not happen in vcpu_block.
> >>- * But that is harmless since that should soon result in halt.
> >>- */
> >>- vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted = true;
> >>- /* We need everybody see unhalt before vcpu unblocks */
> >>- smp_wmb();
> >>- kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >>- }
> >>+ lapic_irq.delivery_mode = APIC_DM_REMRD;
> >Need to make sure that delivery_mode cannot be set to APIC_DM_REMRD
> >from MSI/IOAPIC/IPI path.
>
> I Gleb,
> I need your help here since I do not know much about apic.
>
> so are you saying explicitly checking that, kvm_set_msi_irq,
> apic_send_ipi, native_setup_ioapic_entry, does not have
> APIC_DM_REMRD as delivery_mode set?
>
Yes, but on a second thought what bad can happen if we will not check it?
If guest configures irq to inject APIC_DM_REMRD interrupt this may
needlessly wakeup sleeping vcpu and it will try to accrue spinlock
again, so no correctness problem only performance. If this is the case
lets leave it as it for now.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
