Dong, Eddie wrote: > Wrong mailing list. > Resend :-( > > (and here's a copy of my reply if someone is interested)
> Dong, Eddie wrote: > >> Avi: >> This patch may be questionable at least for current VMX. >> If VM_ENTRY_INTR_INFO_FIELD is already set valid by >> previous irq injection, next injection will be refused with IRQ window >> enabled. This is because current implementation will inject exception >> earlier than irq injection and vmx_intr_assist doesn;t know if >> previous injected event is external irq (and thus overwrite) or >> exception. Guest will see lower priority irq get injected rather than >> higher >> priority IRQ which >> arrives later. >> >> Well, the same thing happens with the code before this commit, no? If a high priority interrupt arrives after injection, it will have to wait. The difference is that before this commit, it woke up with the IPI and now it notices with KVM_REQ_INTR. The window grew larger, but not by much typically. >> BTW, I didn't see obvious benfit from this patch since >> inject_pending_irq still happens later after IRQ disable. maybe I >> miss something. >> >> That was accidental; I corrected it. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
