Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Release and re-acquire preemption and IRQ lock in the same order as >> vcpu_enter_guest does. > > This should happen in vcpu_enter_guest, before it decides to disable > preemption/irqs (so you consolidate the control there).
Maybe, maybe not. handle_invalid_guest_state is an alternative way of "executing" guest code, and it currently shares the setup and tear-down with vmx_vcpu_run. If it has to share parts that actually require preemption and IRQ lock, then moving makes not much sense. Can anyone comment on what the requirements for handle_invalid_guest_state are? I would suggest to merge this fix first and then decide about and potentially merge a refactoring patch. Jan > > Maybe add a new member to x86_ops? > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> index d75c271..4f914c3 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> @@ -3324,8 +3324,8 @@ static void handle_invalid_guest_state(struct kvm_vcpu >> *vcpu, >> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu); >> enum emulation_result err = EMULATE_DONE; >> >> - preempt_enable(); >> local_irq_enable(); >> + preempt_enable(); >> >> while (!guest_state_valid(vcpu)) { >> err = emulate_instruction(vcpu, kvm_run, 0, 0, 0); >> @@ -3344,8 +3344,8 @@ static void handle_invalid_guest_state(struct kvm_vcpu >> *vcpu, >> schedule(); >> } >> >> - local_irq_disable(); >> preempt_disable(); >> + local_irq_disable(); >> >> vmx->invalid_state_emulation_result = err; >> } >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
