On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 07:49 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I would keep the EE_EDGE bit definition. I have no objection to a gradual
> approach however for the other one where we apply it as is now to enable
> coreint while you do a rework to make it better :-)
Note also that I generally d
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 22:12 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
> So I would assume you will not pick up these two patches, right?
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/235530/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/235532/
>
> Anyway it is more easier to enable the external proxy by using this method.
> But if yo
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 08:07:00AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually in the case GS=1 even if E
On 05/09/2013 05:07:00 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL stil
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur
> > as I
> > > recall.
> >
> > Only if directed
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 14:28 +0100, David Laight wrote:
> That will happen if the IRQ goes away while the cpu is performing
> the IACK sequence.
> If the IRQ goes away while the cpu has interrupts masked then
> the cpu won't start the interrupt sequence and then try to
> read a vector when no interr
On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>
> Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur
as I
> recall.
Only if directed to the hypervisor.
This is always the case with KVM, right? At least on booke
..@suse.de;
> kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64:
> soft-disable interrupts
>
> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> >
> > Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still
> occu
> Some MPIC implementations tend to generate a spurrious IRQ in the case
> of level IRQs going away. IE. they still remember an event occurred and
> interrupt the processor, but on IACK return the spurious vector. However
> that isn't guaranteed to be the case and it is perfectly ok (and a good
> i
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>
> Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur as I
> recall.
Only if directed to the hypervisor.
> > Case 1)
> > -> Local_irq_disable() will set soft_enabled = 0
> > -> Now Externel interrupt happens, there we set
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:21 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
> > Is it because that we cannot afford to lose perfmon interrupt for
> more accurate capturing of data ?
>
> Yes, I think this will definitely improve the perf sample quality.
This is one of the primary reason why we implemented lazy disabling
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 06:00 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:15
er.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> On 05/09/2013 06:00 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@wind
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 04:23 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale
er.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> On 05/09/2013 04:23 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> >
: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
a
.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> On 05/09/2013 04:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Kevin Hao [mailto:haoke...@gmail.com]
&
@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> > > This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
> > > restarts interrupt
Claudiu-B02008; k...@vger.kernel.org; Wood
> > Scott-
> > B07421; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
> > linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
> >
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09
; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09AM +, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday
nel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09AM +, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: tiejun.chen [ma
ai Claudiu-B02008; Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-
> > d...@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
> > k...@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
> >
> > On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R6577
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale
er.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> >
: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
a
@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
>
> > > This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
> > > restarts interrupt
> > This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
> > restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
> >
> > a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only for BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL |
> > BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DECREMENTER | BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL
>
> Those aren't the only exceptions that
On 05/06/2013 09:43:37 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt,
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
exc
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the
doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable inter
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers sin
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the
doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as
host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original ch
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original chance with the 'ints' (INTS_DISABLE).
Signed-
34 matches
Mail list logo
