> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:paolo.bonz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paolo
> Bonzini
> On 14/01/2015 10:07, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote:
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> >> On 12/01/2015 13:40, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps check the replay_interrupt() outside, in an && with "if
> >>>>> (unlikely(interrupt_request))"?
> >>> You mean that I should wrap whole condition into "unlikely"?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, I wanted to have a single check of "replay_interrupt()" and/or
> >> "replay_has_interrupt()".
> >>
> >> BTW, I think this is incorrect:
> >>
> >>> + if ((replay_mode != REPLAY_MODE_PLAY
> >>> + || replay_has_interrupt())
> >>> + && cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu,
> >>> interrupt_request)) {
> >>> + replay_interrupt();
> >>
> >> because cc->cpu_exec_interrupt() can exit with cpu_loop_exit(cpu).
> >
> > Haven't found any. Do you have an example?
>
> Yes:
>
> cpu_svm_check_intercept_param ->
> helper_svm_check_intercept_param ->
> helper_vmexit -> cpu_loop_exit
Thanks.
> >> if (replay_mode == REPLAY_MODE_PLAY && !replay_has_interrupt()) {
> >> /* do nothing */
> >> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HALT) {
> >> replay_interrupt();
> >> ...
> >> cpu_loop_exit(cpu);
> >> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_INIT) {
> >> replay_interrupt();
> >> ...
> >> cpu_loop_exit(cpu);
> >> } else {
> >> replay_interrupt();
> >> if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) {
> >> next_tb = 0;
> >> }
> >> }
> >
> > Is it normal that processing of the reset request does not execute
> > cpu_loop_exit(cpu)?
>
> I think it is okay. INIT executes cpu_loop_exit() on x86 because
> processors other than the boot processor are halted after they receive INIT.
Then I cannot put everything in one if-else chain because it will change the
behavior of the code.
After processing RESET branch we can also process hardware interrupts (in
unmodified code).
Pavel Dovgalyuk
