[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C6FF08.6050408@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:39:52 +0700
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.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>,
"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 5/9] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
Hi,
On 2/19/16 00:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
Good point. I have made the change by introducing new function pointer,
kvm_x86_ops.vcpu_blocking() and kvm_x86_ops.vcpu_unblocking(). Then
provides the hook to set/unset the IsRunningBit here. Also, I no longer
set the bit in the vcpu_load/vcpu_put.
If this is okay. I'll send out V2 soon.
Thanks,
Suravee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists