From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Rework INIT and SIPI handling
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:36:58 +0100
Message-ID: <514064DA.1080009@siemens.com>
References: <51403DEF.3090403@siemens.com> <20130313103139.GI11223@redhat.com> <51405FFD.2040102@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:29521 "EHLO
	goliath.siemens.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755461Ab3CMLhD (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:37:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <51405FFD.2040102@siemens.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 2013-03-13 12:16, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> @@ -5871,8 +5867,8 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>                       srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>>>                       kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
>>>                       vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>>> -                     if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu))
>>> -                     {
>>> +                     if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu)) {
>>> +                             kvm_apic_accept_events(vcpu);
>> I think we can drop this. If INIT happens while vcpu is halted it will
>> become runnable here and kvm_apic_accept_events() will be called in
>> vcpu_enter_guest().
> 
> I'm not that sure, but I will recheck carefully.

Doesn't work: If the state was INIT_RECEIVED, we will not process the
SIPI but reenter kvm_vcpu_block. And it's more consistent to process the
events here IMHO.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux