Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 15/12/2014 02:52, Zhang Haoyu wrote: Yes, I find it, but what's the relationship between https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?h=next This is branch next. and https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/ ? This is branch master. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 2014-12-12 18:27:14, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 12/12/2014 10:56, Zhang Haoyu wrote: Strange, I didn't find this commit in https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/ but found it from the repository downloaded by git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git It's here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?h=next (on the second page) Yes, I find it, but what's the relationship between https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?h=next and https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/ ? e.g., https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?h=nextofs=50 https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?ofs=50 Thanks, Zhang Haoyu Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 2014-12-11 19:06:33, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
Zhang Haoyu wrote on 2014-12-11:
Then?
It's already in upstream KVM
Strange, I didn't find this commit in
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/
but found it from the repository downloaded by git clone
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git
Thanks,
Zhang Haoyu
commit 4114c27d450bef228be9c7b0c40a888e18a3a636
Author: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Date: Wed Nov 5 10:53:43 2014 +0800
KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests on
qemu-kvm,
sometimes the guests run into blue screen during reboot. The problem was
that a
guest's RVI was not cleared when it rebooted. This patch has fixed the
problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun ng...@qq.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
-1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
You don't, because the code will look like:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return; if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr); return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is
a hot point,
it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this
case, Wei's patch looks more reasonable.
I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of Tiejun's
patch.
Paolo
Best regards,
Best regards,
Yang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 12/12/2014 10:56, Zhang Haoyu wrote: Strange, I didn't find this commit in https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/ but found it from the repository downloaded by git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git It's here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/virt/kvm/kvm.git/log/?h=next (on the second page) Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
Then?
On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
-1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
You don't, because the code will look like:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return;
if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is a hot
point, it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this
case, Wei's patch looks more reasonable.
I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of Tiejun's
patch.
Paolo
Best regards,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
Zhang Haoyu wrote on 2014-12-11:
Then?
It's already in upstream KVM
commit 4114c27d450bef228be9c7b0c40a888e18a3a636
Author: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Date: Wed Nov 5 10:53:43 2014 +0800
KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests on
qemu-kvm,
sometimes the guests run into blue screen during reboot. The problem was
that a
guest's RVI was not cleared when it rebooted. This patch has fixed the
problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun ng...@qq.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
-1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
You don't, because the code will look like:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return; if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr); return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is
a hot point,
it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this
case, Wei's patch looks more reasonable.
I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of Tiejun's
patch.
Paolo
Best regards,
Best regards,
Yang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 11/12/2014 09:15, Zhang Haoyu wrote:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return;
if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is a hot
point, it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this
case, Wei's patch looks more
The behavior for max_irr == -1 is different for is_guest_mode(vcpu)
(write 0 to RVI) and !is_guest_mode(vcpu) (do nothing). So you have to
check is_guest_mode first, as in the patch that was applied.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 2014/11/5 15:39, Wang, Wei W wrote:
On 05/11/2014 2:14, Tiejun Chen wrote:
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests on
qemu-kvm, sometimes the guests run into blue screen during reboot. The
problem was that a guest's RVI was not cleared when it rebooted. This
patch has fixed the problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun
ng...@qq.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |3 +++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c index
66dd173..6942742 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,9 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
apic-isr_count = kvm_apic_vid_enabled(vcpu-kvm) ?
1 : count_vectors(apic-regs + APIC_ISR);
apic-highest_isr_cache = -1;
+ if (kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update)
+ kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
+ apic_find_highest_irr(apic));
Could we pass 0 directly? Because looks we just need to clear RVI.
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu, 0);
I think this already makes sense based on your description.
Thanks
Tiejun
No. This is a restore function, and we cannot assume that the callers always
need to reset to the initial state.
Okay. Maybe I'm confused by the following change.
Wei
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_isr_update(vcpu-kvm,
apic_find_highest_isr(apic));
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
fe4d2f4..d632548 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7292,19 +7292,19 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
if (max_irr == -1)
+ max_irr = 0;
+
+ if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
+ vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
+ }
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
- if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
+ if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
+0)
Its really not readable to modify max_irr as 0 and check that here, and
especially when you read the original comment.
So what about this?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index 0cd99d8..bc4558b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7280,6 +7280,9 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
u16 status;
u8 old;
+ if (vector == -1)
+ vector = 0;
+
status = vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS);
old = (u8)status 0xff;
if ((u8)vector != old) {
@@ -7291,9 +7294,6 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
- if (max_irr == -1)
- return;
-
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
@@ -7305,6 +7305,9 @@ static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu, int max_irr)
return;
}
+ if (max_irr == -1)
+ return;
+
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
Thanks
Tiejun
return;
- if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
- vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 05/11/2014 4:07, Tiejun Chen wrote:
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests
on qemu-kvm, sometimes the guests run into blue screen during
reboot. The problem was that a guest's RVI was not cleared when it
rebooted. This
patch has fixed the problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun
ng...@qq.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |3 +++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c index
66dd173..6942742 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,9 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
apic-isr_count = kvm_apic_vid_enabled(vcpu-kvm) ?
1 : count_vectors(apic-regs +
APIC_ISR);
apic-highest_isr_cache = -1;
+ if (kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update)
+ kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
+ apic_find_highest_irr(apic));
Could we pass 0 directly? Because looks we just need to clear RVI.
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu, 0);
I think this already makes sense based on your description.
Thanks
Tiejun
No. This is a restore function, and we cannot assume that the callers
always need to reset to the initial state.
Okay. Maybe I'm confused by the following change.
Wei
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_isr_update(vcpu-kvm,
apic_find_highest_isr(apic));
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
fe4d2f4..d632548 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7292,19 +7292,19 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
if (max_irr == -1)
+ max_irr = 0;
+
+ if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
+ vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
+ }
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
- if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
+ if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
+0)
Its really not readable to modify max_irr as 0 and check that here, and
especially when you read the original comment.
So what about this?
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr == -1)
Let's see if Paolo has any comments, then send out a second version.
Wei
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
0cd99d8..bc4558b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7280,6 +7280,9 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
u16 status;
u8 old;
+ if (vector == -1)
+ vector = 0;
+
status = vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS);
old = (u8)status 0xff;
if ((u8)vector != old) {
@@ -7291,9 +7294,6 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
- if (max_irr == -1)
- return;
-
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
@@ -7305,6 +7305,9 @@ static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
return;
}
+ if (max_irr == -1)
+ return;
+
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
Thanks
Tiejun
return;
- if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
- vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 2014/11/5 16:50, Wang, Wei W wrote:
On 05/11/2014 4:07, Tiejun Chen wrote:
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests
on qemu-kvm, sometimes the guests run into blue screen during
reboot. The problem was that a guest's RVI was not cleared when it
rebooted. This
patch has fixed the problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun
ng...@qq.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |3 +++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c index
66dd173..6942742 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,9 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
apic-isr_count = kvm_apic_vid_enabled(vcpu-kvm) ?
1 : count_vectors(apic-regs + APIC_ISR);
apic-highest_isr_cache = -1;
+ if (kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update)
+ kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
+ apic_find_highest_irr(apic));
Could we pass 0 directly? Because looks we just need to clear RVI.
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu, 0);
I think this already makes sense based on your description.
Thanks
Tiejun
No. This is a restore function, and we cannot assume that the callers
always need to reset to the initial state.
Okay. Maybe I'm confused by the following change.
Wei
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_isr_update(vcpu-kvm,
apic_find_highest_isr(apic));
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
fe4d2f4..d632548 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7292,19 +7292,19 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
if (max_irr == -1)
+ max_irr = 0;
+
+ if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
+ vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
+ }
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
- if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
+ if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
+0)
Its really not readable to modify max_irr as 0 and check that here, and
especially when you read the original comment.
So what about this?
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr == -1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
Let's see if Paolo has any comments, then send out a second version.
Wei
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
0cd99d8..bc4558b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7280,6 +7280,9 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
u16 status;
u8 old;
+ if (vector == -1)
+ vector = 0;
+
status = vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS);
old = (u8)status 0xff;
if ((u8)vector != old) {
@@ -7291,9 +7294,6 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
- if (max_irr == -1)
- return;
-
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
@@ -7305,6 +7305,9 @@ static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
return;
}
+ if (max_irr == -1)
+ return;
+
Did you see this?
Tiejun
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
Thanks
Tiejun
return;
- if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
- vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr == -1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
You don't, because the code will look like:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return;
if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of
Tiejun's patch.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2014-11-05:
On 05/11/2014 10:02, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
I think both are ok.
If we zero max_irr in vmx_set_rvi(), we still need this check:
if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
-1)
No, I don't think we need to add this.
You don't, because the code will look like:
if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
return;
if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
}
if (max_irr == -1)
return;
and thus vmx_set_rvi() is never reached if is_guest_mode(vcpu)
!nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu).
I don't think the above code is perfect. Since hwapic_irr_update() is a hot
point, it's better to move the first check after the second check. In this
case, Wei's patch looks more reasonable.
I applied the lapic.c part of Wei's patch, and the vmx.c part of Tiejun's
patch.
Paolo
Best regards,
Yang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 2014/11/5 10:53, Wei Wang wrote:
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests on qemu-kvm,
sometimes the guests run into blue screen during reboot. The problem was that a
guest's RVI was not cleared when it rebooted. This patch has fixed the problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun ng...@qq.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |3 +++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
index 66dd173..6942742 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,9 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
apic-isr_count = kvm_apic_vid_enabled(vcpu-kvm) ?
1 : count_vectors(apic-regs + APIC_ISR);
apic-highest_isr_cache = -1;
+ if (kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update)
+ kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
+ apic_find_highest_irr(apic));
Could we pass 0 directly? Because looks we just need to clear RVI.
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu, 0);
I think this already makes sense based on your description.
Thanks
Tiejun
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_isr_update(vcpu-kvm, apic_find_highest_isr(apic));
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index fe4d2f4..d632548 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7292,19 +7292,19 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
if (max_irr == -1)
+ max_irr = 0;
+
+ if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
+ vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
+ }
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
- if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
+ if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr == 0)
return;
- if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
- vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: reset RVI upon system reset
On 05/11/2014 2:14, Tiejun Chen wrote:
A bug was reported as follows: when running Windows 7 32-bit guests on
qemu-kvm, sometimes the guests run into blue screen during reboot. The
problem was that a guest's RVI was not cleared when it rebooted. This
patch has fixed the problem.
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang wei.w.w...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang yang.z.zh...@intel.com
Tested-by: Rongrong Liu rongrongx@intel.com, Da Chun
ng...@qq.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c |3 +++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c index
66dd173..6942742 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,9 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
apic-isr_count = kvm_apic_vid_enabled(vcpu-kvm) ?
1 : count_vectors(apic-regs + APIC_ISR);
apic-highest_isr_cache = -1;
+ if (kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update)
+ kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
+ apic_find_highest_irr(apic));
Could we pass 0 directly? Because looks we just need to clear RVI.
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_irr_update(vcpu, 0);
I think this already makes sense based on your description.
Thanks
Tiejun
No. This is a restore function, and we cannot assume that the callers always
need to reset to the initial state.
Wei
kvm_x86_ops-hwapic_isr_update(vcpu-kvm,
apic_find_highest_isr(apic));
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(vcpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index
fe4d2f4..d632548 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -7292,19 +7292,19 @@ static void vmx_set_rvi(int vector)
static void vmx_hwapic_irr_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int max_irr)
{
if (max_irr == -1)
+ max_irr = 0;
+
+ if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
+ vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
return;
+ }
/*
* If a vmexit is needed, vmx_check_nested_events handles it.
*/
- if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu))
+ if ((is_guest_mode(vcpu) nested_exit_on_intr(vcpu)) || max_irr
==
+0)
return;
- if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
- vmx_set_rvi(max_irr);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Fall back to pre-APICv interrupt injection since L2
* is run without virtual interrupt delivery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
