On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:40:05 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:12:02AM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
> > > Did you have kvm.git commit 8ae6dc90ac84d9734e343210c8ec709f50cd9d89
> > > when testing this?
> > >
> > > I believe it should fix that issue, because "ps->inject_pending" won'
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:12:02AM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
> > Did you have kvm.git commit 8ae6dc90ac84d9734e343210c8ec709f50cd9d89
> > when testing this?
> >
> > I believe it should fix that issue, because "ps->inject_pending" won't
> > be set by kvm_pit_timer_intr_post() if the IRQ is masked. P
On Friday 09 May 2008 22:53:00 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:49:20PM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 April 2008 17:28:22 Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > >> This breaks ia64 (and
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:49:20PM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 17:28:22 Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
> > >>
> > >>> * We will
On Sunday 13 April 2008 17:28:22 Avi Kivity wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
> >>
> >>>* We will block until either an interrupt or a signal wakes us up
> >>>*/
> >>> wh
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Why?
This one does'nt work for us. Our arch defines various reasons why we
would not fall asleep but do something else, and we need to check them
while in atomic of a lock that other archs don't have before sleeping.
See kvm_s390_handle_wait in arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c.
Carsten Otte wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> @@ -765,6 +766,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp
>>>
>>
>>
>> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
>>> * We will block until either an interrupt or a signal wakes us up
>>> */
>>> while (!kvm_cpu_has_interrup
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
>> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
>>
>>> * We will block until either an interrupt or a signal wakes us up
>>> */
>>> while (!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)
>>> +
Avi Kivity wrote:
>> @@ -765,6 +766,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp
>>
>
>
> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
>> * We will block until either an interrupt or a signal wakes us up
>> */
>> while (!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)
>> + && !k
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This breaks ia64 (and shouldn't s390 use this too?)
> > * We will block until either an interrupt or a signal wakes us up
> > */
> > while (!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)
> >+ && !kvm_cpu_has_pending_timer(vcpu)
>
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Timers that fire between guest hlt and vcpu_block's add_wait_queue() are
> ignored, possibly resulting in hangs.
>
> Also make sure that atomic_inc and waitqueue_active tests happen in the
> specified order, otherwise the following race is open:
>
> CPU0
Timers that fire between guest hlt and vcpu_block's add_wait_queue() are
ignored, possibly resulting in hangs.
Also make sure that atomic_inc and waitqueue_active tests happen in the
specified order, otherwise the following race is open:
CPU0CPU1
12 matches
Mail list logo
