From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: use tasklet to handle init/sipi? Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:00:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Zhang, Yang Z" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" Cc: "Qiu, Shuang" , "Zhang, Xiantao" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 26/03/2013 06:14, "Zhang, Yang Z" wrote: >> You'll have t elaborate on the problem *you* are trying to solve, and why >> such a change would do the trick. If there's good reason, I'm not against a >> change such as this. But the code is subtle and I don't want to mess with it >> if there are simpler solutions. > The problem is: > With apicv support, the apic write is trap like vmexit. We cannot fallback to > guest to retry the instruction. So it will break current logic. Oh, I see. Well I think it is fine to have vlapic_schedule_init_sipi_tasklet() return X86EMUL_OKAY rather than X86EMUL_RETRY. We used to need to return RETRY, but the code got simplified and now it is actually unnecessary. That should make your patch a lot simpler eh? ;) -- Keir