public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox