From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julian Stecklina Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] Add NMI injection support to SVM. Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:52 +0200 Message-ID: <87r5zoenyf.fsf@tabernacle.lan> References: <1239616545-25199-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1239616545-25199-14-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <49E8DEC1.4030802@web.de> <20090419131735.GG10126@redhat.com> <49EB26BA.9020200@web.de> <20090419133222.GK10126@redhat.com> <49EB29E3.5030901@redhat.com> <20090419134143.GM10126@redhat.com> <49EB2A70.5020200@redhat.com> <20090419134433.GN10126@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Return-path: Sender: kvm-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Gleb Natapov writes: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:43:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:40:51PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>>> Gleb Natapov wrote: >>>> >>>>>> It's OK as a first step towards correct NMI emulation. Additionally, you >>>>>> could enable the IRQ window interception in case the is an NMI pending. >>>>>> The resulting behavior should then much like the VNMI mask emulation for >>>>>> vmx. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yeah, but the question is if IRQ windows is already opened will exit >>>>> happens before or after IRET. >>>>> >>>> You mean if the NMI handler enabled interrupts? >>>> >>>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> >> >> Then the guest deserves whatever it gets... >> > I suspect windows may do this since it uses NMI for task switching. Could you elaborate on that? How/why does it use NMIs for task switching? Regards, -- Julian Stecklina The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners - Ernst Jan Plugge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html