On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 08:07:00AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0,
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 22:12 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
So I would assume you will not pick up these two patches, right?
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/235530/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/235532/
Anyway it is more easier to enable the external proxy by using this method.
But if you
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 07:49 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I would keep the EE_EDGE bit definition. I have no objection to a gradual
approach however for the other one where we apply it as is now to enable
coreint while you do a rework to make it better :-)
Note also that I generally
; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only
: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
bounces+Caraman
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale
...@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 03:33 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev
@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09AM +, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 1:18 PM
; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09AM +, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday
Scott-
B07421; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:51:09AM +, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From
; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only
@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 04:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Hao [mailto:haoke...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
Cc
: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 04:23 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
bounces+Caraman
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 04:23 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 06:00 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
Cc
...@suse.de; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
On 05/09/2013 06:00 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:15
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:21 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
Is it because that we cannot afford to lose perfmon interrupt for
more accurate capturing of data ?
Yes, I think this will definitely improve the perf sample quality.
This is one of the primary reason why we implemented lazy disabling in
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur as I
recall.
Only if directed to the hypervisor.
Case 1)
- Local_irq_disable() will set soft_enabled = 0
- Now Externel interrupt happens, there we set
Some MPIC implementations tend to generate a spurrious IRQ in the case
of level IRQs going away. IE. they still remember an event occurred and
interrupt the processor, but on IACK return the spurious vector. However
that isn't guaranteed to be the case and it is perfectly ok (and a good
idea)
-...@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64:
soft-disable interrupts
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still
occur as I
recall.
Only if directed to the hypervisor.
Yes
On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur
as I
recall.
Only if directed to the hypervisor.
This is always the case with KVM, right? At least on
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 14:28 +0100, David Laight wrote:
That will happen if the IRQ goes away while the cpu is performing
the IACK sequence.
If the IRQ goes away while the cpu has interrupts masked then
the cpu won't start the interrupt sequence and then try to
read a vector when no interrupt
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still occur
as I
recall.
Only if directed to the
On 05/09/2013 05:07:00 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 16:27 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/09/2013 07:37:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Actually in the case GS=1 even if EE=0, EXT/DEC/DBELL still
This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that
restarts interrupts if they were meant for the host:
a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only for BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL |
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DECREMENTER | BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL
Those aren't the only exceptions that can end up
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the
doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as
host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the
doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
On 05/06/2013 09:43:37 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt,
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original chance with the 'ints' (INTS_DISABLE).
On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original
34 matches
Mail list logo
