lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC V6 1/5] kvm hypervisor : Add a hypercall to KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks
On 04/27/2012 09:23 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 04:15:35PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 04/24/2012 03:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:29:47PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>> From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri<vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> KVM_HC_KICK_CPU allows the calling vcpu to kick another vcpu out of halt state.
>>>>
>>>> The presence of these hypercalls is indicated to guest via
>>>> KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT/KVM_CAP_PV_UNHALT.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri<vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki Poulose<suzuki@in.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>> [...]
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op: Kick a vcpu.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @apicid - apicid of vcpu to be kicked.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op(struct kvm *kvm, int apicid)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>>>> + if (!kvm_apic_present(vcpu))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (kvm_apic_match_dest(vcpu, 0, 0, apicid, 0))
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (vcpu) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Setting unhalt flag here can result in spurious runnable
>>>> + * state when unhalt reset does not happen in vcpu_block.
>>>> + * But that is harmless since that should soon result in halt.
>>>> + */
>>>> + vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted = 1;
>>>> + /* We need everybody see unhalt before vcpu unblocks */
>>>> + smp_mb();
>>>> + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>> This is too similar to kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(). Why not reuse it. We
>>> can use one of reserved delivery modes as PV delivery mode. We will
>>> disallow guest to trigger it through apic interface, so this will not be
>>> part of ABI and can be changed at will.
[...]
>> kvm/x86.c
>> =========
>> kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op()
>> {
>>
>> struct kvm_lapic_irq lapic_irq;
>>
>> lapic_irq.shorthand = 0;
>> lapic_irq.dest_mode = 0;
>> lapic_irq.dest_id = apicid;
>>
>> lapic_irq.delivery_mode = PV_DELIVERY_MODE;
>> kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(kvm, 0,&lapic_irq );
>>
>> }
>>
>> kvm/lapic.c
>> ==========
>> _apic_accept_irq()
>> {
>> ...
>> case APIC_DM_REMRD:
>> result = 1;
>> vcpu->pv_unhalted = 1
>> smp_mb();
>> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>> kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
>> break;
>>
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> here using PV_DELIVERY_MODE = APIC_DM_REMRD, which was unused.
>>
> Yes, this is what I mean except that PV_DELIVERY_MODE should be
> number defined as reserved by Intel spec.
>

Hi Gleb, Avi,

This had been TODO in my V8 patches.
I 'll fold this into V9 (while rebasing to
3.5-rc).
Please let me know if it is OK.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-28 20:41    [W:0.125 / U:3.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site