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 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 different
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, while mine
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 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 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 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
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, 2013 at
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
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, 2013 at
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
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/110505
I still do not.
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 if, as in
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 prefer to have the cmpxchg directly
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. Then yes, we will not
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:
Ah, we check
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
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-arch.mp_state =
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:
else
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)
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 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 here; process
+ *
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_SIPI,
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_APIC_SIPI,
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