>>> On 13.12.18 at 14:18, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > So, long story short, on VMX we first send out the vm_event, while > processing it an interrupt / exception may become pending, before > resuming the VCPU that has sent out the vm_event there's a Xen function > that picks up the pending interrupt and schedules it (writes it in the > VMCS), and only then we attempt the emulation, which may overwrite it > (because there's only one place we can write to schedule interrupts / > exceptions).
So perhaps the solution is indeed to change the order of how things get done, instead of blocking interrupts? You seem to think this way too, as per ... > 2. Interrupts are not blocked indefinitely - only until the emulation is > done. It could be argued that that's really the proper place for them to > be processed anyway - on an instruction boundary, _after_ the > in-progress instruction has finished executing. It's just that with the > vm_event introspection thing you could say that executing the current > instruction may take a bit longer. ... this. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
