[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5491B8DD.5020000@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:09:49 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 24/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
is blocked
On 12/12/2014 16:14, Feng Wu wrote:
> This patch updates the Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
> is blocked.
>
> pre-block:
> - Add the vCPU to the blocked per-CPU list
> - Clear 'SN'
Should SN be already clear (and NV set to POSTED_INTR_VECTOR)? Can it
happen that you go from sched-out to blocked without doing a sched-in first?
In fact, if this is possible, what happens if vcpu->preempted &&
vcpu->blocked?
> - Set 'NV' to POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR
>
> post-block:
> - Remove the vCPU from the per-CPU list
Paolo
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng.wu@...el.com>
--
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