Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
>>> On 24.06.15 at 07:18, wrote:
> @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v,
> u8 vector)
> */
> pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> }
> -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> +else
> {
> +prev.control = 0;
> +
> +do {
> +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 << POSTED_INTR_SN);
> +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> +
> +/*
> + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> + * posted-interrupts as well.
> + */
> +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> +{
> +vcpu_kick(v);
> +return;
> +}
> +
> +prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
> + old.control, new.control);
> +} while ( prev.control != old.control );
This pretty clearly demonstrates that mixing bitfields and non-bitfield
mask operations makes code hard to read: How is one supposed to
see at the first glance that e.g. prev.on and
old.control & (1 << POSTED_INTR_ON) are the same thing?
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
> -Original Message-
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:31 PM
> To: Wu, Feng; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: k...@xen.org; jbeul...@suse.com; andrew.coop...@citrix.com; Zhang,
> Yang Z; george.dun...@eu.citrix.com
> Subject: RE: [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
>
> > From: Wu, Feng
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 6:11 PM
> > > From: Tian, Kevin
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 5:06 PM
> > >
> > > > From: Wu, Feng
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:18 PM
> > > >
> > > > Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> > > > are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> > > > posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> > > > ---
> > > > v3:
> > > > use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
> > > >
> > > > xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
> >
> > > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void
> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct
> > > vcpu *v)
> > > >
> > > > static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> > > > {
> > > > +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > move to 'else if'.
> > >
> > > > if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct
> vcpu
> > > *v, u8
> > > > vector)
> > > > */
> > > > pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> > > > }
> > > > -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > > > +else
> > > > {
> > > > +prev.control = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +do {
> > > > +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> > > > + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 <<
> > > POSTED_INTR_SN);
> > > > +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> > > > + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> > > > + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> > > > + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > > > + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> > > > + * posted-interrupts as well.
> > > > + */
> > > > +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> > > > +{
> > > > +vcpu_kick(v);
> > > > +return;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > would it make more sense to move above check after cmpxchg?
> >
> > My original idea is that, we only need to do the check when
> > prev.control != old.control, which means the cmpxchg is not
> > successful completed. If we add the check between cmpxchg
> > and while ( prev.control != old.control ), it seems the logic is
> > not so clear, since we don't need to check prev.sn and prev.on
> > when cmxchg succeeds in setting the new value.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Feng
> >
>
> Then it'd be clearer if you move the check the start of the loop, so
> you can avoid two additional reads when the prev.on/sn is set. :-)
Good idea!
Thanks,
Feng
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 6:11 PM
> > From: Tian, Kevin
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 5:06 PM
> >
> > > From: Wu, Feng
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:18 PM
> > >
> > > Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> > > are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> > > posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> > > ---
> > > v3:
> > > use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
> > >
> > > xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
>
> > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct
> > vcpu *v)
> > >
> > > static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> > > {
> > > +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
> > > +
> >
> > move to 'else if'.
> >
> > > if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > > return;
> > >
> > > @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu
> > *v, u8
> > > vector)
> > > */
> > > pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> > > }
> > > -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > > +else
> > > {
> > > +prev.control = 0;
> > > +
> > > +do {
> > > +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> > > + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 <<
> > POSTED_INTR_SN);
> > > +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> > > + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> > > + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> > > + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > > + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> > > + * posted-interrupts as well.
> > > + */
> > > +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> > > +{
> > > +vcpu_kick(v);
> > > +return;
> > > +}
> >
> > would it make more sense to move above check after cmpxchg?
>
> My original idea is that, we only need to do the check when
> prev.control != old.control, which means the cmpxchg is not
> successful completed. If we add the check between cmpxchg
> and while ( prev.control != old.control ), it seems the logic is
> not so clear, since we don't need to check prev.sn and prev.on
> when cmxchg succeeds in setting the new value.
>
> Thanks,
> Feng
>
Then it'd be clearer if you move the check the start of the loop, so
you can avoid two additional reads when the prev.on/sn is set. :-)
Thanks
Kevin
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
> -Original Message-
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 5:06 PM
> To: Wu, Feng; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: k...@xen.org; jbeul...@suse.com; andrew.coop...@citrix.com; Zhang,
> Yang Z; george.dun...@eu.citrix.com
> Subject: RE: [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
>
> > From: Wu, Feng
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:18 PM
> >
> > Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> > are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> > posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> > ---
> > v3:
> > use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
> >
> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct
> vcpu *v)
> >
> > static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> > {
> > +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
> > +
>
> move to 'else if'.
>
> > if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu
> *v, u8
> > vector)
> > */
> > pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> > }
> > -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > +else
> > {
> > +prev.control = 0;
> > +
> > +do {
> > +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> > + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 <<
> POSTED_INTR_SN);
> > +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> > + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> > + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> > + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> > + * posted-interrupts as well.
> > + */
> > +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> > +{
> > +vcpu_kick(v);
> > +return;
> > +}
>
> would it make more sense to move above check after cmpxchg?
My original idea is that, we only need to do the check when
prev.control != old.control, which means the cmpxchg is not
successful completed. If we add the check between cmpxchg
and while ( prev.control != old.control ), it seems the logic is
not so clear, since we don't need to check prev.sn and prev.on
when cmxchg succeeds in setting the new value.
Thanks,
Feng
>
> > +
> > +prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
> > + old.control, new.control);
> > +} while ( prev.control != old.control );
> > +
> > __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(v);
> > -return;
> > }
> > -
> > -vcpu_kick(v);
> > }
> >
> > static void vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v)
> > --
> > 2.1.0
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:18 PM
>
> Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> ---
> v3:
> use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
>
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu
> *v)
>
> static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> {
> +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
> +
move to 'else if'.
> if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> return;
>
> @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8
> vector)
> */
> pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> }
> -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> +else
> {
> +prev.control = 0;
> +
> +do {
> +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 << POSTED_INTR_SN);
> +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> +
> +/*
> + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> + * posted-interrupts as well.
> + */
> +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> +{
> +vcpu_kick(v);
> +return;
> +}
would it make more sense to move above check after cmpxchg?
> +
> +prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
> + old.control, new.control);
> +} while ( prev.control != old.control );
> +
> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(v);
> -return;
> }
> -
> -vcpu_kick(v);
> }
>
> static void vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v)
> --
> 2.1.0
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:41 PM
> To: Wu, Feng; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Tian, Kevin; k...@xen.org; george.dun...@eu.citrix.com;
> jbeul...@suse.com; Zhang, Yang Z
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is
> set
>
> On 24/06/15 06:18, Feng Wu wrote:
> > Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> > are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> > posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> > ---
> > v3:
> > use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
> >
> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct
> vcpu *v)
> >
> > static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> > {
> > +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
>
> These should be moved into the else clause below, to reduce their scope.
>
> > +
> > if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu
> *v, u8 vector)
> > */
> > pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> > }
> > -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> > +else
> > {
> > +prev.control = 0;
> > +
> > +do {
> > +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> > + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 <<
> POSTED_INTR_SN);
>
> Brackets around each of the 1 << $NNN please.
>
> > +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> > + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> > + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> > + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> > + * posted-interrupts as well.
> > + */
> > +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> > +{
> > +vcpu_kick(v);
> > +return;
> > +}
> > +
> > +prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
> > + old.control, new.control);
> > +} while ( prev.control != old.control );
> > +
> > __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(v);
> > -return;
> > }
> > -
> > -vcpu_kick(v);
>
> This removes a vcpu_kick() from the eoi_exitmap_changed path, which I
> suspect is not what you intend.
Oops.. thanks for pointing it out!
Thanks,
Feng
>
> ~Andrew
>
> > }
> >
> > static void vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v)
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
On 24/06/15 06:18, Feng Wu wrote:
> Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> ---
> v3:
> use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
>
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu
> *v)
>
> static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
> {
> +struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
These should be moved into the else clause below, to reduce their scope.
> +
> if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> return;
>
> @@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v,
> u8 vector)
> */
> pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
> }
> -else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
> +else
> {
> +prev.control = 0;
> +
> +do {
> +old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
> + ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 << POSTED_INTR_SN);
Brackets around each of the 1 << $NNN please.
> +new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
> + 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
> +
> +/*
> + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> + * posted-interrupts as well.
> + */
> +if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
> +{
> +vcpu_kick(v);
> +return;
> +}
> +
> +prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
> + old.control, new.control);
> +} while ( prev.control != old.control );
> +
> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(v);
> -return;
> }
> -
> -vcpu_kick(v);
This removes a vcpu_kick() from the eoi_exitmap_changed path, which I
suspect is not what you intend.
~Andrew
> }
>
> static void vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v)
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
[Xen-devel] [v3 08/15] Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is set
Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
---
v3:
use cmpxchg to test SN/ON and set ON
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 32
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
index 0837627..b94ef6a 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu *v)
static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8 vector)
{
+struct pi_desc old, new, prev;
+
if ( pi_test_and_set_pir(vector, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
return;
@@ -1698,13 +1700,35 @@ static void vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct vcpu *v, u8
vector)
*/
pi_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc);
}
-else if ( !pi_test_and_set_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) )
+else
{
+prev.control = 0;
+
+do {
+old.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control &
+ ~(1 << POSTED_INTR_ON | 1 << POSTED_INTR_SN);
+new.control = v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control |
+ 1 << POSTED_INTR_ON;
+
+/*
+ * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
+ * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
+ * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
+ * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
+ * posted-interrupts as well.
+ */
+if ( prev.sn || prev.on )
+{
+vcpu_kick(v);
+return;
+}
+
+prev.control = cmpxchg(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc.control,
+ old.control, new.control);
+} while ( prev.control != old.control );
+
__vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(v);
-return;
}
-
-vcpu_kick(v);
}
static void vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v)
--
2.1.0
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
