> Am 11.06.2014 um 02:12 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>: > >> On 06/11/2014 04:09 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 06/10/2014 06:29 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 10/06/2014 16:48, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: >>>>> The s390 restart interrupt is a per-vcpu interrupt, which we really >>>>> don't want to inject on _all_ vcpus. OTOH, we want to inject that >>>>> interrupt on any vcpu - we don't care which one it is. So I'd really >>>>> like an "inject nmi on default cpu" option. >>>> >>>> We could define a default CPU for the command. What isn't going to work >>>> is to use the human monitor's "current CPU" concept (set with the cpu >>>> command). >>> >>> It isn't going to work, but to me it seems like a bug. Why was the NMI >>> command even converted to QAPI if it cannot work? Let's just use >>> monitor_set_cpu from qmp_cpu and call it a day. >>> >>> The amount of churn that Alexey is going through for this feature is >>> unreasonable. >> >> I agree. I see two different paths forward: >> >> 1) Use the patches as they are - they seem pretty sound and take the >> existing x86/s390 only feature to spapr >> 2) Model an "NMI" button. That button would get instantiated by the >> machine model. That would allow the wiring to be defined by the board. >> Monitor / QMP would only "press" that button (trigger an edge interrupt? >> call a function? something). > > > Ufff... A button? Any good existing example?
I think the closest thing we have today is the system_reset call ;). > A device like hw/input/ps2.c? > And HMP's do_mouse_button()? There are queues, I'll need to fight against > them... Yeah, nmi is a debug feature. As I said, I don't care all that much. IMHO we can just declare that the nmi call runs on vcpu0 always and call it a day. Alex > > >> I don't mind much either way - option 2 is the architecturally correct way >> of doing this. Option 1 probably won't hurt us either. > > > > -- > Alexey
