From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: "Yang, Sheng" <sheng.yang@intel.com>
Cc: kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: LAPIC soft-disable vs. LVT masking
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:58:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48FC724B.7030604@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081020113158.GA30536@yukikaze>
Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 05:46:35PM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
>> On Monday 20 October 2008 16:49:11 Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi Sheng,
>>>
>>> obviously, I meditated too long over the APIC specs and VAPIC code of
>>> KVM: When the guest resets the soft-enable bit in SVR, the in-kernel
>>> APIC implementation also set the LVT masked bits - so far, so fine
>>> (according to specs). But I failed to read out of that doc if those mask
>>> bits are permanently set (until the guest clears them again) or only
>>> until the soft-disabling ends (ie. they are restored to their previous
>>> state - QEMU goes this way). Can you clarify?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jan
>>>
>> Hi Jan
>>
>> I also can't find related info in the spec. But I think, when software enable
>> bit is cleaned, the spec said the mask bits are set, which means the content
>> of register is changed. And no words for what happen if set software enable
>> bit, so I think it maybe retain the mask state after software enable (a
>> little more possibility).
>>
>> I will give a update if I got more infos.
>
> Find some info:
>
> SDM 3A 8.5.1 Local Vector Table
> Mask:
> [...] This flag would remain set until software clears it.
>
> I think this can explain it.
If you cut out this sentence allow, maybe. But when looking at the full
paragraph...
"Interrupt mask: (0) enables reception of the interrupt and (1) inhibits
reception of the interrupt. When the local APIC handles a
performance-monitoring counters interrupt, it automatically sets the
mask flag in the corresponding LVT entry. This flag will remain set
until software clears it."
At least I put the last sentence in the context of the last-but-one. So,
do I have to apply an "extended" interpretation here?
>
> If you got some interesting circumstance, please share with us. :)
Well, I guess someone has to "ask" the real hardware (or someone who
regularly implements it in silicon ;) )...
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-20 11:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-20 8:49 LAPIC soft-disable vs. LVT masking Jan Kiszka
2008-10-20 9:46 ` Yang, Sheng
2008-10-20 11:31 ` Sheng Yang
2008-10-20 11:58 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2008-10-20 12:16 ` Sheng Yang
2008-10-20 12:21 ` Jan Kiszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48FC724B.7030604@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sheng.yang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.