From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] KVM: x86: Add support for local interrupt requests
 from userspace
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:58:38 +0200
Message-ID: <55B7A6AE.5070001@redhat.com>
References: <1438039062-3168-1-git-send-email-srutherford@google.com>
 <1438039062-3168-4-git-send-email-srutherford@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:34408 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751417AbbG1P6m (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:58:42 -0400
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so187078140wib.1
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1438039062-3168-4-git-send-email-srutherford@google.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>



On 28/07/2015 01:17, Steve Rutherford wrote:
>  	return kvm->arch.vpic;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int pic_in_kernel(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = (pic_irqchip(kvm) != NULL);
> +	smp_rmb();

What does this memory barrier pair with?  I don't think it's necessary.

> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  static inline int irqchip_split(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  	return kvm->arch.irqchip_split;


> @@ -5819,13 +5828,24 @@ static void post_kvm_run_save(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	kvm_run->flags = is_smm(vcpu) ? KVM_RUN_X86_SMM : 0;
>  	kvm_run->cr8 = kvm_get_cr8(vcpu);
>  	kvm_run->apic_base = kvm_get_apic_base(vcpu);
> -	if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
> +	if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm) && pic_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
>  		kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection = 1;
> -	else
> +	else if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm)) {
> +		int ready_for_interrupt_injection =
> +				kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu);
> +
> +		if (!kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection &&
> +		    ready_for_interrupt_injection)
> +			kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PIC_UNMASK_EXIT, vcpu);
> +
> +		kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection =
> +				ready_for_interrupt_injection;
> +	} else {
>  		kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection =
>  			kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
>  			!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) &&
>  			!kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static void update_cr8_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)

Why is this necessary?  Could it just set
kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection as in the pic_in_kernel case?

Paolo