[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C5DA62.8080204@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:51:14 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, gleb@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wei@...hat.com,
sherry.hurwitz@....com
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 5/9] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
On 18/02/2016 15:18, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> KVM just has to make sure that targeted VCPUs notice the interrupt,
> which means to kick (wake up) VCPUs that don't have IsRunning set.
> There is no need to do anything with running VCPUs, because they
> - are in guest mode and noticed the doorbell
> - are in host mode, where they will
> 1) VMRUN as fast as they can because the VCPU didn't want to halt
> (and IRR is handled on VMRUN)
> 2) check IRR after unsetting IsRunning and goto (1) if there are
> pending interrupts. (RFC doesn't do this, which is another bug)
This is not necessary. IsRunning is only cleared at vcpu_put time. The
next KVM_RUN will look at IRR (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable), if necessary set
the mp_state to KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE, and do the VMRUN.
But I agree that this is what Suravee is missing.
> It's still possible that we misunderstood the spec. Does AVIC handle
> IPIs differently?
I don't think we misunderstood it. Well, I did, but that's fixed now. :)
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists