On 03/03/2016 11:42, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> In facts, instead of setting up the vAPIC backing page address when
> calling kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), we should be able to do it when calling
> kvm_arch_vcpu_sched_in(). This seems more appropriate since the
> kvm_arch_vcpu_load() is also called i
Hi
On 02/19/2016 12:18 AM, 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 shoul
Hi
On 2/19/16 18:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 19/02/2016 12:39, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
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,
On 19/02/2016 12:39, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>
> 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_
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
Hi,
On 2/18/16 21:18, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2016-02-18 09:25+0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit:
On 2/17/16 01:06, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2016-02-16 17:56+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
On 16/02/2016 15:13, Radim Krčmář wrote:
Yeah, I think atomic there means that it won't race with other writes to
the same byte
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
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
On 18/02/2016 16:43, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-02-18 15:51+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 18/02/2016 15:18, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> KVM just has to make sure that targeted VCPUs notice the interrupt,
>>> which means to kick (wake up) VCPUs that don't have IsRunning set.
>>> There is no need to do an
2016-02-18 15:51+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 18/02/2016 15:18, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> KVM just has to make sure that targeted VCPUs notice the interrupt,
>> which means to kick (wake up) VCPUs that don't have IsRunning set.
>> There is no need to do anything with running VCPUs, because they
>> - are
On 18/02/2016 15:18, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> KVM just has to make sure that targeted VCPUs notice the interrupt,
> which means to kick (wake up) VCPUs that don't have IsRunning set.
> There is no need to do anything with running VCPUs, because they
> - are in guest mode and noticed the doorbell
>
2016-02-18 09:25+0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit:
> On 2/17/16 01:06, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>2016-02-16 17:56+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
On 16/02/2016 15:13, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>Yeah, I think atomic there means that it won't race with other writes to
>>the same byte in IRR. We're fine as long a
Hi
On 2/17/16 01:06, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2016-02-16 17:56+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>On 16/02/2016 15:13, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>Yeah, I think atomic there means that it won't race with other writes to
>>the same byte in IRR. We're fine as long as AVIC writes IRR before
>>checking IsRunning on ever
2016-02-16 17:56+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 16/02/2016 15:13, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> Yeah, I think atomic there means that it won't race with other writes to
>> the same byte in IRR. We're fine as long as AVIC writes IRR before
>> checking IsRunning on every destination, which it seems to be.
>
>
On 16/02/2016 15:13, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> Yeah, I think atomic there means that it won't race with other writes to
> the same byte in IRR. We're fine as long as AVIC writes IRR before
> checking IsRunning on every destination, which it seems to be.
More precisely, if AVIC writes all IRRs (5.1)
2016-02-16 13:15+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 16/02/2016 07:29, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> On 2/12/16 22:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2016 14:59, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INVALID_INT_TYPE:
| [...]
+case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_TARGET_NOT_RUN:
>>>
On 16/02/2016 07:29, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On 2/12/16 22:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2016 14:59, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>> + "icrh:icrl=%#010x:%08x, id=%u, index=%u\n",
>>> + __func__, svm->vcpu.cpu, svm->vcpu.vcpu_id,
>>> + ic
Hi Paolo,
On 2/12/16 22:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 12/02/2016 14:59, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+"icrh:icrl=%#010x:%08x, id=%u, index=%u\n",
+__func__, svm->vcpu.cpu, svm->vcpu.vcpu_id,
+icrh, icrl, id, index);
+
+ switch (id) {
+
2016-02-12 16:38+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 12/02/2016 14:59, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> +case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_TARGET_NOT_RUN:
>> +kvm_lapic_reg_write(apic, APIC_ICR2, icrh);
>> +kvm_lapic_reg_write(apic, APIC_ICR, icrl);
>
> Wouldn't this cause a double injectio
On 12/02/2016 14:59, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> + "icrh:icrl=%#010x:%08x, id=%u, index=%u\n",
> + __func__, svm->vcpu.cpu, svm->vcpu.vcpu_id,
> + icrh, icrl, id, index);
> +
> + switch (id) {
> + case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INVALID_INT_TYPE:
> +
Introduce VMEXIT handlers, avic_incp_ipi_interception() and
avic_noaccel_interception().
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit
---
arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h | 9 +-
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 241
2 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 1 deleti
21 matches
Mail list logo
