On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:16AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:44:20PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 07/29/2009 03:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 06:45:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Release and re-acquire preemption and IRQ lock in the same order as
> >>>> vcpu_enter_guest does.
> >>>>
> >>> This should happen in vcpu_enter_guest, before it decides to disable
> >>> preemption/irqs (so you consolidate the control there).
> >>>
> >>> Maybe add a new member to x86_ops?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why don't do something like this ?
> >>
> >
> > The downside is that we're moving a vmx specific hack to common code.
> >
> > I think this could be simplified if interrupt injection happened outside
> > the critical section. This is needed anyway because emulated interrupt
> > injection needs to access guest memory (IVT and the stack).
>
> Why can't it happen now (outside of the critical section), other than
> the kvm_vcpu_kick thing?
>
Depend what part of irq injection we want out of critical section. I
guess inject_pending_event() can be called outside of it now. Need to
think about others.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
