[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C5FCCF.5010802@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:18:07 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
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, "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 5/9] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
On 18/02/2016 17:27, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-02-18 16:53+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> Patch 9 is okay, but it is also necessary to clear IsRunning in
>> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking. In
>> addition, vcpu_put/vcpu_load should not modify IsRunning between
>> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking. Do you agree?
>
> Yes.
>
> I think we don't need to clear IsRunning on preemption, which would
> simplify the protection. (I haven't thought much about userspace exit,
> so maybe we could skip that one as well, but we don't need to now.)
>
> The reason for that is that KVM knows that the VCPU was scheduled out,
> so it couldn't do much in the AVIC VMEXIT.
> (KVM could force scheduler to pritioritize the VCPU, but our kick
> doesn't do that now and it seems like a bad idea.)
>
> Does it seem reasonable?
Yes, and in fact it wouldn't need to clear and set IsRunning on
vcpu_put/vcpu_load; only on vcpu_blocking/vcpu_unblocking.
The IsRunning flag is more of a IsNotHalted flag, in the end.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists