On September 12, 2016 3:58 PM, Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: >> From: Xuquan (Euler) [mailto:xuqu...@huawei.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:02 AM >> >> On August 30, 2016 1:58 PM, Tian Kevin < kevin.t...@intel.com > wrote: >> >> From: Xuquan (Euler) [mailto:xuqu...@huawei.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 8:59 PM >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c >> index 1d5d287..cc247c3 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c >> @@ -433,6 +433,11 @@ void vlapic_EOI_set(struct vlapic *vlapic) void >> vlapic_handle_EOI(struct vlapic *vlapic, u8 vector) { >> struct domain *d = vlapic_domain(vlapic); >> + struct hvm_intack pt_intack; >> + >> + pt_intack.vector = vector; >> + pt_intack.source = hvm_intsrc_lapic; >> + pt_intr_post(vlapic_vcpu(vlapic), pt_intack); >> >> if ( vlapic_test_and_clear_vector(vector, >&vlapic->regs->data[APIC_TMR]) ) >> vioapic_update_EOI(d, vector); diff --git >> a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c index >> 8fca08c..29d9bbf 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c >> @@ -333,8 +333,6 @@ void vmx_intr_assist(void) >> clear_bit(i, &v->arch.hvm_vmx.eoi_exitmap_changed); >> __vmwrite(EOI_EXIT_BITMAP(i), >v->arch.hvm_vmx.eoi_exit_bitmap[i]); >> } >> - >> - pt_intr_post(v, intack); >> } >> else >> { >> > >Because we update pt irq in every vmentry, there is a chance that >already-injected instance (before EOI-induced exit happens) will incur another >pending IRR setting if there is a VM-exit happens between HW virtual interrupt >injection (vIRR->0, vISR->1) and EOI-induced exit (vISR->0), since pt_intr_post >hasn't been invoked yet. I guess this is the reason why you still see faster >wallclock. >
Agreed. A good description. My bad description is from another aspect. >I think you need mark this pending_intr_post situation explicitly. >Then pt_update_irq should skip such pt timer when pending_intr_post of that >timer is true (otherwise the update is meaningless since previous one hasn't >been posted yet). Then with your change to post in EOI-induced exit handler, it >should work correctly to meet the goal >- one virtual interrupt delivery for one pending pt intr... > I think we are at least on the right track. But I can't follow ' pending_intr_post ', a new parameter? Thanks. Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
