From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] KVM: Check for pending events before attempting
 injection
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:44:06 -0300
Message-ID: <20100729154406.GA2441@amt.cnet>
References: <1280236780-5847-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
 <1280236780-5847-2-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
 <20100728162119.GA25224@amt.cnet>
 <4C505B47.5090405@redhat.com>
 <20100728163713.GA26653@amt.cnet>
 <4C50608C.7020207@redhat.com>
 <20100728172227.GB26822@amt.cnet>
 <4C51409B.6000305@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62137 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757840Ab0G2Ppq (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:46 -0400
Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6TFjju8026171
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:45 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C51409B.6000305@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:49:31AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>  On 07/28/2010 08:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >>>>>that needs reinjection (or an exception).
> >>>>That can happen event now, no?  A pending exception, interrupt comes
> >>>>along, injection picks up the exception but leaves the interrupt.
> >>>>
> >>>>Now the situation can be more complicated:
> >>>>
> >>>>- pending exception
> >>>>- injection
> >>>>- interrupt, sets KVM_REQ_EVENT
> >>>>- notices KVM_REQ_EVENT
> >>>>- drops KVM_REQ_EVENT, cancels exception (made pending again)
> >>>>- goes back
> >>>>- injection (injects exception again, interrupt is pending)
> >>>>
> >>>>as far as I can tell, this is all fine.
> >>>But you cleared KVM_REQ_EVENT. Which means you're not going to inject
> >>>the pending interrupt on the next entry.
> >>Doh.  So we need to set KVM_REQ_EVENT again, after the final check
> >>for vcpu->requests, to make sure we redo injection again.
> >>
> >>So we can make inject_pending_event() return true if there's more in
> >>the queue, and if it did, re-raise KVM_REQ_EVENT just before entry?
> >Yeah, that would do it.
> 
> On second and third thoughts, that is unneeded.  If an interrupt or
> nmi is still pending after event injection, we will request an
> interrupt or nmi window which will set KVM_REQ_EVENT.  An exception
> cannot be pending after an event injection since it is the highest
> priority event.
> 
> Yes?

Yep. Userspace irqchip is still broken though. Can't see whats wrong
with svm.