Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:41:44 +0800 | From | Peter Xu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: VMX: avoid double list add with VT-d posted interrupts |
| |
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:29:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 09/06/2017 04:50, Peter Xu wrote: > > Even, I'm thinking whether we can unconditionally setup PDST only in > > pi_load(), then post_block() only needs to handle the NV bit. > > No, you can't do that without fiddling with the blocked_vcpu lists in > pi_load.
Then how about we keep the blocked_vcpu list maintainance in post_block(), but only let pi_load() handle the PDST?
(I really feel like they are two things - the blocked_vcpu list helps for the kick when wakeup happens; while PDST makes sure the PI is always pointing to the correct cpu)
> > > (PS. since I'm at here... could I ask why in pi_pre_block we need to > > udpate PDST as well? I guess that decides who will run the > > wakeup_handler code to kick the vcpu thread, but would that really > > matter?) > > For this one it's a yes. :) I think it's not needed anymore indeed > after these patches; see this comment: > > /* > * The wakeup_handler expects the VCPU to be on the > * blocked_vcpu_list that matches ndst.
Actually I was always unclear on what this sentense means: iiuc blocked_vcpu_list is only a list of vcpus that may need a kick, so why it has anything to do with PDST after all?
(or say, no matter what PDST is, we just kick the vcpu thread without doing anything else, do we?)
> Interrupts > * are disabled so no preemption should happen, but > * err on the side of safety. > */ > > So we could add a WARN.
Thanks,
-- Peter Xu
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |