On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 04:32:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > So what I didn't like from the start about
> > pending_events is that it introduces two locked instruction on each
> > interrupt injection path, your patch makes it worse by change one of
> > those locked instruction to cmpxchg, whi
Il 02/06/2013 15:14, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> Can you show what is the case in my patch where you have coalescing? I
> You'ev said it in some of your emails. Quoting:
> " INIT-INIT-SIPI-INIT-SIPI
>
> your version would do many SIPIs, while mine would do just one."
Cancelling is very dif
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:48:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/05/2013 11:18, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
> >>> vpu0:
Il 31/05/2013 11:18, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
>>> vpu0:vcpu1:
>>> set INIT
>>>
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
> > vpu0:vcpu1:
> > set INIT
> > test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT)
> >
Il 31/05/2013 06:36, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> In my commit message there is two INITs in a row:
> vpu0:vcpu1:
> set INIT
> test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT)
>process INIT
> set INIT
> set SIPI
>
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:15:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 15:35, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:23:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 30/05/2013 15:10, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
Il 30/05/2013 15:35, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:23:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 15:10, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>
> A
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:23:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 15:10, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Th
Il 30/05/2013 15:10, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Then yes, we will not
>>> lose the event.
>
> Ok, then I'd pref
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Then yes, we will not
> >>> > > lose the event.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, then I'd prefer to have the cmpxchg directly in the i
Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> > >
>>> > > Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Then yes, we will not
>>> > > lose the event.
>> >
>> > Ok, then I'd prefer to have the cmpxchg directly in the if, as in
>> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/11050
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:30:41AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 09:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 30/05/2013 08:01, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
Il 30/05/2013 09:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 08:01, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 03:20, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 28,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 08:01, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 30/05/2013 03:20, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:33:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
Il 30/05/2013 08:01, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 03:20, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:33:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 28/05/2013 17:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 28,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 03:20, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:33:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 28/05/2013 17:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
Il 30/05/2013 03:20, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:33:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 28/05/2013 17:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 28/05/2013 14:56, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>>
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:33:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 28/05/2013 17:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 28/05/2013 14:56, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > else
> > vcpu->arc
Il 28/05/2013 17:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 28/05/2013 14:56, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> else
> vcpu->arch.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED;
> }
> - if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 28/05/2013 14:56, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >> > else
> >> > vcpu->arch.mp_state =
> >> > KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED;
> >> > }
> >> > -if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_SIP
Il 28/05/2013 14:56, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> >else
>> >vcpu->arch.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED;
>> >}
>> > - if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_SIPI, &apic->pending_events) &&
>> > + /*
>> > + * Note that we may get another INIT+SIPI sequence right
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:56:19PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/05/2013 15:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > apic->pending_events processing has a race that may cause INIT and SIPI
> > processing to be reordered:
> >
> > vpu0:vcpu1:
> > set INIT
> >
Il 26/05/2013 15:00, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> apic->pending_events processing has a race that may cause INIT and SIPI
> processing to be reordered:
>
> vpu0:vcpu1:
> set INIT
>test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT)
>
apic->pending_events processing has a race that may cause INIT and SIPI
processing to be reordered:
vpu0:vcpu1:
set INIT
test_and_clear_bit(KVM_APIC_INIT)
process INIT
set INIT
set SIPI
25 matches
Mail list logo