>>> On 25.01.16 at 06:26, wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:31 PM
>> To: Jan Beulich ; Wu, Feng
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper
> -Original Message-
> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:31 PM
> To: Jan Beulich ; Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
> ;
> > +spin_lock_irqsave(_cpu(pi_blocked_vcpu_lock, pi_block_cpu),
> flags);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_block_cpu == NR_CPUS here means the vCPU
> was
> > + * removed from the blocking list while we are acquiring the lock.
> > + */
> > +if (
>>> On 21.01.16 at 10:05, wrote:
>> > +spin_lock_irqsave(_cpu(pi_blocked_vcpu_lock, pi_block_cpu),
>> flags);
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_block_cpu == NR_CPUS here means the vCPU
>> was
>> > + * removed from the blocking list while we are
>>> On 20.01.16 at 08:49, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 11:14 PM
>> >>> On 03.12.15 at 09:35, wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> > @@ -83,7 +83,131
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 01:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.01.16 at 08:49, wrote:
> > >
> > We need to call arch_vcpu_block() before
> > local_events_need_delivery(),
> > since VT-d hardware can issue notification event when we are in
> > arch_vcpu_block(), it that
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 4:35 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Dario Faggioli
> ; George Dunlap ;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 7:13 PM
> To: Jan Beulich ; Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
> ;
>>> On 20.01.16 at 12:20, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 4:35 PM
>> >>> On 20.01.16 at 08:49, wrote:
>> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 11:14 PM
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 04:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.01.16 at 12:20, wrote:
> > >
> > > Then you didn't understand: The question isn't this path, but the
> > > path where the hook gets called if non-NULL (and hence the
> > > possibility to avoid such needless
> -Original Message-
> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:31 PM
> To: Jan Beulich ; Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
> ;
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 7:36 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Dario Faggioli
> ; George Dunlap ;
>
>>> On 20.01.16 at 14:48, wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 7:36 PM
>> To: Wu, Feng
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Dario Faggioli
>>
.t...@intel.com>; xen-
> de...@lists.xen.org; k...@xen.org
> Subject: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core
> logic handling
>
> >>> On 18.01.16 at 09:45, <feng...@intel.com> wrote:
> > It has been pending for such a long time, and Dari
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 11:14 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Dario Faggioli
> ; George Dunlap ;
>
>>> On 03.12.15 at 09:35, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -7019,6 +7019,12 @@ void hvm_domain_soft_reset(struct domain *d)
> hvm_destroy_all_ioreq_servers(d);
> }
>
> +void arch_vcpu_block(struct vcpu *v)
> +{
> +if (
>>> On 18.01.16 at 09:45, wrote:
> It has been pending for such a long time, and Dario and Kevin both reviewed
> it, it is pending on your comments, could you tell when you will look at it?
I can't really, and I don't think I've seen e.g. Dario give his
Reviewed-by. This is a
>>> On 18.01.16 at 02:20, wrote:
> Hi Jan, have you had a chance to look at this remaining one so far?
No, not yet, sorry.
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
.t...@intel.com>; xen-
> de...@lists.xen.org; k...@xen.org
> Subject: RE: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core
> logic handling
>
> >>> On 18.01.16 at 02:20, <feng...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jan, have you had a chance to look at this r
om; Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>;
> k...@xen.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core
> logic handling
>
> >>> "Wu, Feng" <feng...@intel.com> 12/23/15 5:58 AM >>>
> >Kevin and Dario gave some c
>>> "Wu, Feng" 12/23/15 5:58 AM >>>
>Kevin and Dario gave some comments about this patch. I would like to
>know whether you have any comments about this patch, it is highly
>appreciated if you can give your opinions, which is very important for
>it to get merged as soon as
Here I am,
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 16:35 +0800, Feng Wu wrote:
> This is the core logic handling for VT-d posted-interrupts. Basically
> it
> deals with how and when to update posted-interrupts during the
> following
> scenarios:
> - vCPU is preempted
> - vCPU is slept
> - vCPU is blocked
>
> [..]
>; George
> Dunlap <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic
> handling
>
> Here I am,
Nice to having you reviewi
lt;george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic
> handling
>
> Here I am,
>
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 16:35 +0800, Fe
.dun...@eu.citrix.com>;
> Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich
> <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic
> handling
>
> > From: Wu, Feng
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 201
> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 10:29 AM
> >
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void vmx_pi_state_to_normal(struct vcpu *v)
> > > +{
> > >
> > I'm still a bit puzzled about the name... But it's better than in the
> > previous round, and I can't suggest a solution that I would
On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 06:43 +, Wu, Feng wrote:
> Ping...
>
Yep, it's on my list of things to do before leaving for the winter
holidays (which will be on Wednesday). I'll send in my comments soon.
Regards,
Dario
--
<> (Raistlin Majere)
> -Original Message-
> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 5:04 PM
> To: Wu, Feng ; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Keir Fraser ; Jan Beulich ; Andrew
> Cooper
Ping...
> -Original Message-
> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 4:36 PM
> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Wu, Feng ; Keir Fraser ; Jan Beulich
> ; Andrew Cooper ; Tian,
> Kevin
> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 4:36 PM
>
> This is the core logic handling for VT-d posted-interrupts. Basically it
> deals with how and when to update posted-interrupts during the following
> scenarios:
> - vCPU is preempted
> - vCPU is slept
> - vCPU is blocked
>
> When
> -Original Message-
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:40 PM
> To: Wu, Feng ; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Keir Fraser ; Jan Beulich ; Andrew
> Cooper ; George Dunlap
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:28 AM
> To: Wu, Feng ; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Keir Fraser ; Jan Beulich ; Andrew
> Cooper ; George Dunlap
>
This is the core logic handling for VT-d posted-interrupts. Basically it
deals with how and when to update posted-interrupts during the following
scenarios:
- vCPU is preempted
- vCPU is slept
- vCPU is blocked
When vCPU is preempted/slept, we update the posted-interrupts during
scheduling by
33 matches
Mail list logo