From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Translate interrupt shadow when waiting on NMI window
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:27:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7A72FB.8020709@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100216101705.GG2995@redhat.com>
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:14:45AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:04:10AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:16:12AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> Found while browsing Xen code: While we assume that the STI interrupt
>>>>>> shadow also inplies virtual NMI blocking, some processors may have a
>>>>>> different opinion (SDM 3: 22.3). To avoid misunderstandings that would
>>>>>> cause endless VM entry attempts, translate STI into MOV SS blocking when
>>>>>> requesting the NMI window.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just remove "block by STI" check in vmx_nmi_allowed()? IIRC this
>>>>> is documented that on some CPUs STI does not block NMI.
>>>>>
>>>> Probably because we will stumble and fall on those CPUs that do care.
>>>>
>>> But this defines behaviour of cpu _we_ emulate. So on _our_ cpu NMI will
>>> not be blocked by STI.
>> The host CPU decides if it accepts an NMI injections while
> Are you sure? I haven't found such check during VMENTRY.
I also only find the explicitly stated exclusion of MOV SS blocking vs.
NMI injection. If we can rely on this, removing STI blocking from
vmx_nmi_allowed should suffice. Or, better, can we get an official
confirmation from Intel?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-16 10:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-16 9:16 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Translate interrupt shadow when waiting on NMI window Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 10:00 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 10:04 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 10:06 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 10:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 10:17 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 10:27 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2010-02-16 10:32 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 10:37 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 10:38 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-21 14:17 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 14:30 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-21 14:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 14:44 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-04-21 15:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-21 15:30 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-05-03 7:32 ` Gleb Natapov
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=4B7A72FB.8020709@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.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