From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Ehrhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm-s390: infrastructure to kick vcpus out of guest state Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:11:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4A1E8D6C.2020901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1243251652-27617-1-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1243251652-27617-2-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090525202248.GA7608@amt.cnet> <4A1BA233.6080504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090528034412.GA6090@amt.cnet> <4A1E4468.1050309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A1E4E6F.8050402@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.157]:33436 "EHLO mtagate8.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755337AbZE1NLs (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 09:11:48 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate8.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4SDBElr207666 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:11:14 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n4SDBExq3039258 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 15:11:14 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4SDBDte002351 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 15:11:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A1E4E6F.8050402@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > Christian Ehrhardt wrote: >>> So you _need_ a mechanism to kick all vcpus out of guest mode? >>> =20 >> I have a mechanism to kick a vcpu, and I use it. Due to the fact tha= t=20 >> smp_call_* don't work as kick for us the kick is an arch specific=20 >> function. >> I hop ethat clarified this part :-) >> > > You could still use make_all_vcpus_request(), just change=20 > smp_call_function_many() to your own kicker. > Yes and I like this idea for further unification, but I don't want it=20 mixed too much into the patches in discussion atm. Because on one hand I have some problems giving my arch specific kick a= =20 behaviour like "return when the guest WAS kicked" and on the other hand= =20 I would e.g. also need to streamline the check in make_all_vcpus_reques= t=20 which cpu is running etc because vcpu->cpu stays -1 all the time on s39= 0=20 (never used). Therefore I would unify things step by step and this way allow single=20 task to went off my task pile here :-) --=20 Gr=FCsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization=20