On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:06:30PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > VCPU requests that the receiver should handle should only be cleared > by the receiver.
I cannot parse this sentence. > Not only does this properly implement the protocol, > but also avoids bugs where one VCPU clears another VCPU's request, > before the receiving VCPU has had a chance to see it. Is this an actual race we have currently or just something thay may happen later. Im' not sure. > ARM VCPUs > currently only handle one request, EXIT, and handling it is achieved > by checking pause to see if the VCPU should sleep. This makes sense. So forget my comment on the previous patch about getting rid of the pause flag. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > index 9174ed13135a..7be0d9b0c63a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > @@ -553,7 +553,6 @@ void kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct swait_queue_head *wq = kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu); > > - kvm_clear_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_EXIT, vcpu); > vcpu->arch.pause = false; > swake_up(wq); > } > @@ -625,7 +624,14 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > struct kvm_run *run) > > update_vttbr(vcpu->kvm); > > - if (vcpu->arch.power_off || vcpu->arch.pause) > + if (kvm_request_pending(vcpu)) { > + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_EXIT, vcpu)) { > + if (vcpu->arch.pause) > + vcpu_sleep(vcpu); > + } Can we factor out this bit to a separate function, kvm_handle_vcpu_requests() or something like that? > + } > + > + if (vcpu->arch.power_off) > vcpu_sleep(vcpu); > > /* > -- > 2.9.3 > Thanks, -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
