On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 09:13:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:14:04PM +0900, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 10/20/2009 06:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:06:36PM +0900, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/20/2009 05:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So save/restore kvm_vcpu_arch::exception? As another substate or as part
> >>>> of a generalized NMI substate?
> >>>>
> >>> Yes. It's not part of an nmi substate, but both can be part of an
> >>> exception substate (but need to look at the docs vewy cawefuwy to
> >>> make sure we don't screw up again).
> >>>
> >>>
> >> What do you mean? How they can be both part of exception substate?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, nomenclature failure. We need NMI state, Interrupt state
> > (already provided), and pending exception state (which can be a fault or
> > a trap). There's also some extra state associated with pending debug
> > exceptions (maybe we can copy it into dr6).
>
> KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT can also be lost, but i don't think anybody cares?
>
If pending exception will be migrated KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT will be restored
after guest will try to re-execute instruction that caused it. One more
reason to migrate pending exceptions. And why not migrate
KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT while we are at it.
> >
> > We can either put all of these into one substate, or into separate
> > substates. I'm not sure which is best.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
