On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 05/08/19 09:12, Anup Patel wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote:
> >>> + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) {
> >>
> >> This can be
On 05/08/19 09:12, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote:
>>> + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) {
>>
>> This can be kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable instead, since kvm_vcpu_block will
>> check it anyway before
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote:
> > + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) {
>
> This can be kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable instead, since kvm_vcpu_block will
> check it anyway before sleeping.
I think we can skip this check
On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote:
> + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) {
This can be kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable instead, since kvm_vcpu_block will
check it anyway before sleeping.
Paolo
> + kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> +
We get illegal instruction trap whenever Guest/VM executes WFI
instruction.
This patch handles WFI trap by blocking the trapped VCPU using
kvm_vcpu_block() API. The blocked VCPU will be automatically
resumed whenever a VCPU interrupt is injected from user-space
or from in-kernel IRQCHIP
5 matches
Mail list logo