From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Otte Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Consolidate vcpu ioctl locking Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:35:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4BF637A7.3010203@de.ibm.com> References: <1273749459-622-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4BEBEA25.8080309@redhat.com> <4BEBEA7E.80202@redhat.com> <4BEBEAAE.9030502@redhat.com> <24423079-CDE0-4DEA-BC73-3B6976BE0CA6@suse.de> <4BEBF0BF.2020404@redhat.com> <4BEE3C56.2070007@redhat.com> <4BEE544B.50405@redhat.com> <20442124-2400-4273-A256-6846017D3141@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , "kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "kvm-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" To: Alexander Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20442124-2400-4273-A256-6846017D3141-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 15.05.2010 10:26, Alexander Graf wrote: > On S390, I'm also still sceptical if the implementation we have really works. A device injects an S390_INTERRUPT with its address and on the next vcpu_run, an according interrupt is issued. But what happens if two devices trigger an S390_INTERRUPT before the vcpu_run? We'd have lost an interrupt by then... We're safe on that: the interrupt info field in both struct kvm (for floating interrupts) and struct vcpu (for cpu local interrupts) have their own locking and can queue up interrupts. cheers, Carsten