[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzmeoA_zvtr+8QymzGyey4xsr3hBc+S8QBxA5Ad2dQ3=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:17:55 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: LAPIC: Fix lapic timer injection delay
2017-06-29 15:55 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>:
>> +
>> + /* In case the sw timer triggered in the window */
>> + if (atomic_read(&apic->lapic_timer.pending) &&
>> + !apic_lvtt_period(apic))
>> + need_cancel = true;
>> + else if (r && (apic_lvtt_oneshot(apic) ||
>> apic_lvtt_tscdeadline(apic)))
>> + apic_timer_expired(apic);
>> + }
>> + }
[...]
>
> You still need to enable the preemption timer even if you return 1, so
> in lapic.c it becomes
>
> if (!apic_lvtt_period(apic)) {
> if (r)
> apic_timer_expired(apic);
> if (atomic_read(&apic->lapic_timer.pending))
> need_cancel = true;
> }
I think the codes are more clear but the same as above. We didn't
program preemption timer vmcs field if delta == 0, so how to
understand "need to enable the preemption timer even if return 1"?
>
>
> Otherwise it looks good. Thanks for your persistence. :)
Thanks for your help and patient. :)
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists