[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:14:04 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Wincy Van <fanwenyi0529@...il.com>
CC: "gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: nVMX: Enable nested posted interrupt processing
On 02/02/2015 16:33, Wincy Van wrote:
> static void vmx_accomp_nested_posted_intr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>
> if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> vmx->nested.posted_intr_nv != -1 &&
> pi_test_on(vmx->nested.pi_desc))
> kvm_apic_set_irr(vcpu,
> vmx->nested.posted_intr_nv);
> }
>
> Then we will get an nested-vmexit in vmx_check_nested_events, that
> posted intr will be handled by L1 immediately.
> This mechanism will also emulate the hardware's behavior: If a posted
> intr was not accomplished by hardware, we will get an interrupt with
> POSTED_INTR_NV.
Yes.
> Would this be better?
I think you do not even need a new bit. You can use KVM_REQ_EVENT and
(to complete my suggestion, which was not enough) do the above in
vmx_check_nested_events.
Paolo
--
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