On 25.02.2012, at 00:33, Scott Wood wrote: > On 02/24/2012 08:26 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> When during guest context we get a performance monitor interrupt, we >> currently bail out and oops. Let's route it to its correct handler >> instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >> index 7adef28..423701b 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >> @@ -677,6 +677,10 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> r = RESUME_GUEST; >> break; >> >> + case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PERFORMANCE_MONITOR: >> + r = RESUME_GUEST; >> + break; >> + >> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_HV_PRIV: >> r = emulation_exit(run, vcpu); >> break; > > Why do we need to call timer_interrupt() explicitly, but can rely on > automatic retriggering for perfmon?
We don't rely on automatic retriggering for perfmon. There are 2 different places where we need to handle an incoming exit code - the "reinject" code path and the "big switch over all exits" code path. This one deals with the latter. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
