On 09/19/2011 06:57 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >Decrement when setting nmi_injected = false, increment when setting
> >nmi_injected = true, in vmx/svm.c.
>
> That gives a queue length of 3: one running nmi and nmi_pending = 2.
Increment through the same wrapper that will collapse the second
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:37:35PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 06:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:09:39PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 09/19/2011 05:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> >
On 09/19/2011 06:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:09:39PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 05:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:09:39PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 05:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Yes, due to NMI-blocked-by-STI. A really t
On 09/19/2011 06:09 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/19/2011 05:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Yes, due to NMI-blocked-by-STI. A really touchy area.
> >> >And we don't need
On 09/19/2011 05:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Yes, due to NMI-blocked-by-STI. A really touchy area.
> >> >And we don't need the window exit notification then
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:30:27PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, due to NMI-blocked-by-STI. A really touchy area.
> >> >And we don't need the window exit notification then? I don't understand
> >> >what nmi_in_progress is suppo
On 09/19/2011 04:54 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, due to NMI-blocked-by-STI. A really touchy area.
> >And we don't need the window exit notification then? I don't understand
> >what nmi_in_progress is supposed to do here.
>
> We need the window notification in both cases. If
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:48:58PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 08:25 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>
> >> I think so. Suppose the vcpu enters just after kvm_make_request(); it
> >> sees KVM_REQ_EVENT and clears it, but doesn't see nmi_pending because it
> >> wasn't set set. Then comes
On 09/15/2011 08:25 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> I think so. Suppose the vcpu enters just after kvm_make_request(); it
> sees KVM_REQ_EVENT and clears it, but doesn't see nmi_pending because it
> wasn't set set. Then comes a kick, the guest is reentered with
> nmi_pending set but KVM_REQ_EVENT
On 2011-09-15 19:02, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:01 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-09-15 16:45, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> If simultaneous NMIs happen, we're supposed to queue the second
>>> and next (collapsing them), but currently we sometimes collapse
>>> the second into the first.
>>
>
On 09/15/2011 07:01 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-09-15 16:45, Avi Kivity wrote:
> If simultaneous NMIs happen, we're supposed to queue the second
> and next (collapsing them), but currently we sometimes collapse
> the second into the first.
Can you describe the race in a few more details her
On 2011-09-15 16:45, Avi Kivity wrote:
> If simultaneous NMIs happen, we're supposed to queue the second
> and next (collapsing them), but currently we sometimes collapse
> the second into the first.
Can you describe the race in a few more details here ("sometimes" sounds
like "I don't know when"
13 matches
Mail list logo
