Avi Kivity wrote:
Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
So you _need_ a mechanism to kick all vcpus out of guest mode?
I have a mechanism to kick a vcpu, and I use it. Due to the fact that
smp_call_* don't work as kick for us the kick is an arch specific
function.
I hop ethat clarified this part :-)
Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
So you _need_ a mechanism to kick all vcpus out of guest mode?
I have a mechanism to kick a vcpu, and I use it. Due to the fact that
smp_call_* don't work as kick for us the kick is an arch specific
function.
I hop ethat clarified this part :-)
You could still u
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:02:59AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:40:49PM +0200, ehrha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Christian Ehrhardt
To ensure vcpu's come out of guest context in certain case
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:02:59AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:40:49PM +0200, ehrha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>>> From: Christian Ehrhardt
>>>
>>> To ensure vcpu's come out of guest context in certain cases this patch adds
>>>
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:40:49PM +0200, ehrha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Christian Ehrhardt
To ensure vcpu's come out of guest context in certain cases this patch adds a
s390 specific way to kick them out of guest context. Currently it kicks them
out to reru
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:40:49PM +0200, ehrha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> From: Christian Ehrhardt
>
> To ensure vcpu's come out of guest context in certain cases this patch adds a
> s390 specific way to kick them out of guest context. Currently it kicks them
> out to rerun the vcpu_run path
