From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755269AbZFDOAW (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:00:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753053AbZFDOAK (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:00:10 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:37758 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbZFDOAJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:00:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:07:27 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Avi Kivity Cc: Andi Kleen , ying.huang@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2/2] KVM: Add VT-x machine check support Message-ID: <20090604140727.GD1065@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090604112.650907584@firstfloor.org> <20090604111205.C47C31D0282@basil.firstfloor.org> <4A27B481.5020003@redhat.com> <20090604125123.GY1065@one.firstfloor.org> <4A27C2BF.3090108@redhat.com> <20090604130107.GA1065@one.firstfloor.org> <4A27C7B6.6030709@redhat.com> <20090604132023.GC1065@one.firstfloor.org> <4A27D0FE.5000609@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A27D0FE.5000609@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:49:50PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >>There's no good place as it breaks the nice exit handler table. You > >>could put it in vmx_complete_interrupts() next to NMI handling. > >> > > > >I think I came up with a easy cheesy but not too bad solution now that > >should work. It simply remembers the CPU in the vcpu structure and > >schedules back to it. That's fine for this purpose. > > > > We might be able schedule back in a timely manner. Why not hack > vmx_complete_interrupts()? You're still in the critical section so > you're guaranteed no delays or surprises. Yes, have to do that. My original scheme was too risky because the Machine checks have synchronization mechanisms now and preemption has no time limit. I'll hack on it later today, hope fully have a patch tomorrow. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.