[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513DE5E5.1080402@siemens.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:10:45 +0100
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: kvm: reset the bootstrap processor when it gets
an INIT
On 2013-03-11 15:09, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:06:18PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2013-03-11 15:05, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> We are not moving away from mp_state, we are moving away from using
>>>>> mp_state for signaling because with nested virt INIT does not always
>>>>> change mp_state, not only that it can change mp_state long after signal
>>>>> is received after vmx off is done.
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, for that to happen, we will also need to influence the INIT level.
>>>> Unless I misread the spec, INIT is blocked while in root mode, and if
>>>> you deassert INIT before leaving root (vmxoff, vmenter), nothing
>>>> actually happens. So what matters is the INIT signal level at the exit
>>>> of root mode.
>>>>
>>> You are talking about INIT# signal received via CPU pin, right? I think
>>> INIT send by IPI cannot go away.
>>
>> Why shouldn't it? Besides edge, there is also level-triggered INIT.
>>
> OK, so level-triggered INIT can be de-asserted what about edge triggered
> one? :)
It should be lost while in root mode.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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