> > We have
> > - wait (wait bit in PSW)
> > - disabled wait (wait bit and interrupt fencing in PSW)
> > - STOPPED (not related to PSW, state change usually handled via service
> > processor or hypervisor)
> >
> > I think we have to differentiate between KVM/TCG. On KVM we always do in
> > kernel
> Il 28/07/2014 17:03, David Hildenbrand ha scritto:
> > Well the difference is, that a STOPPED vcpu can be woken up by non-interrupt
> > like things (SIGP START) AND a special interrupt (SIGP RESTART - which is
> > like
> > a "SIPI"++ as it performs a psw exchange - "NMI"). So we basically have t
Il 28/07/2014 17:03, David Hildenbrand ha scritto:
> Well the difference is, that a STOPPED vcpu can be woken up by non-interrupt
> like things (SIGP START) AND a special interrupt (SIGP RESTART - which is like
> a "SIPI"++ as it performs a psw exchange - "NMI"). So we basically have two
> paths th
On 29.07.14 13:44, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 28/07/14 16:22, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
From: David Hildenbrand
If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may wake
On 28/07/14 16:22, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
From: David Hildenbrand
If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may
wake it
up. A cpu
On 28.07.14 17:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
From: David Hildenbrand
If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may wake
it
up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it i
> >
> > On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >>> From: David Hildenbrand
> > >>>
> > >>> If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt
> > >>> may wake it
> > >>> up. A cpu also has to
>
> On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> >>
> >> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>> From: David Hildenbrand
> >>>
> >>> If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may
> >>> wake it
> >>> up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is
On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> From: David Hildenbrand
>>>
>>> If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may
>>> wake it
>>> up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is halted and has work
Il 28/07/2014 16:16, David Hildenbrand ha scritto:
> Later, another vcpu might decide to turn that vcpu back on (by e.g. sending a
> SIGP START to that vcpu).
>
> I am not sure if such a mechanism/scenario is applicable to any other arch.
> They
> all seem to reset the cs->halted flag if they kno
>
> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > From: David Hildenbrand
> >
> > If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may
> > wake it
> > up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is halted and has work to do - this
> > scenario wasn't hit in kvm case yet, a
On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
From: David Hildenbrand
If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may wake
it
up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is halted and has work to do - this
scenario wasn't hit in kvm case yet, as only "disabled wait" is
From: David Hildenbrand
If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may wake
it
up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is halted and has work to do - this
scenario wasn't hit in kvm case yet, as only "disabled wait" is processed within
QEMU.
Signed-off-by: David Hilde
13 matches
Mail list logo
