On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Zhang, Yang Z <yang.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> + if (vector == vmcs12->posted_intr_nv && +
>>>> nested_cpu_has_posted_intr(vmcs12)) { + if (vcpu->mode
>>>> == IN_GUEST_MODE) + apic->send_IPI_mask(get_cpu_mask(vcpu->cpu), +
>>>> POSTED_INTR_VECTOR); + else {
>>>> + r = -1; + goto out; +
>>>> } + + /* + * if posted intr is
>>>> done by hardware, the + * corresponding eoi was sent to
>>>> L0. Thus + * we should send eoi to L1 manually. +
>>>> */ + kvm_apic_set_eoi_accelerated(vcpu, +
>>>> vmcs12->posted_intr_nv);
>>>
>>> Why this is necessary? As your comments mentioned, it is done by
>>> hardware not L1, why L1 should aware of it?
>>>
>>
>> According to SDM 29.6, if the processor recognizes a posted interrupt,
>> it will send an EOI to LAPIC.
>> If the posted intr is done by hardware, the processor will send eoi to
>> hardware LAPIC, not L1's, just like the none-nested case(the physical
>> interrupt is dismissed). So we should take care of the L1's LAPIC and send
>> an eoi to it.
>
> No. You are not emulating the PI feature. You just reuse the hardware's
> capability. So you don't need to let L1 know it.
>
Agreed, I had thought we have already set L1's IRR before this, I was wrong.
BTW, I was trying to complete the nested posted intr manually if the
dest vcpu is in_guest_mode but not IN_GUEST_MODE, but I found that
it is difficult to set RVI of the destination vcpu timely, because we
should keep the RVI, PIR and ON in sync : (
I think it is better to do a nested vmexit in the case above, rather
than emulate it, because that case is much less than the hardware
case.
Thanks,
Wincy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
