On 28/04/2015 16:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Alternatively, the irq-disabled versions could be called
> > __kvm_guest_{enter,exit}. Then you can use those directly when it makes
> > sense.
>
> ..having a special __kvm_guest_{enter,exit} without the WARN_ON might be even
> the cheapest
Am 28.04.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c
>> @@ -891,7 +891,9 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit_pr(struct kvm_run *run, struct
>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>
>> /* We get here with MSR.EE=1 */
>>
>> +local_irq_disable();
>
On 28/04/2015 12:32, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Some architectures already have irq disabled when calling
> kvm_guest_exit. Push down the disabling into the architectures
> to avoid double disabling. This also allows to replace
> irq_save with irq_disable which might be cheaper.
> arm and mip
Some architectures already have irq disabled when calling
kvm_guest_exit. Push down the disabling into the architectures
to avoid double disabling. This also allows to replace
irq_save with irq_disable which might be cheaper.
arm and mips already have interrupts disabled. s390/power/x86
need adopti
