[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323443432.16764.2.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:10:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] x86: Add workaround to NMI iret woes
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:00 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:22 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Its was definitely tongue in cheek, also I did say this'll be a massive
> > pain with paravirt since I doubt paravirt calls are NMI safe.
>
> But does paravirt simulate NMIs? Does a guest ever take an NMI? I can
> enable paravirt to see if it breaks.
KVM does NMIs, the write_idt thing is a paravirt call. Then again, a
vcpu is a single thread of execution, there can only ever be 1 hypercall
at the same time.
The only thing that remains is if the hypercall interface is NMI-safe,
what if the NMI comes in just as another context is also starting a
hypercall. I really don't know enough about all that crap to know.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists