From: Yang, S. <she...@in...> - 2008-05-12 05:13:16
|
On Friday 09 May 2008 23:49:13 Avi Kivity wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > From 4942a5c35c97e5edb6fe1303e04fb86f25cac345 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Sheng Yang <she...@in...> > > Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:00:57 +0800 > > Subject: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: VMX: Enable NMI with in-kernel irqchip > > > > > > static void kvm_do_inject_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > { > > int word_index = __ffs(vcpu->arch.irq_summary); > > @@ -2146,9 +2159,11 @@ static void do_interrupt_requests(struct kvm_vcpu > > *vcpu, > > /* > > * Interrupts blocked. Wait for unblock. > > */ > > - cpu_based_vm_exec_control |= CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING; > > + cpu_based_vm_exec_control |= > > + CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING; > > else > > - cpu_based_vm_exec_control &= ~CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING; > > + cpu_based_vm_exec_control &= > > + ~CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING; > > This seems spurious. Sorry, seems I am too anxious to keep it in hand... I would like to check it much careful in the future. > > > /* We need to handle NMIs before interrupts are enabled */ > > - if ((intr_info & INTR_INFO_INTR_TYPE_MASK) == 0x200) { /* nmi */ > > + if ((intr_info & INTR_INFO_INTR_TYPE_MASK) == 0x200) { > > KVMTRACE_0D(NMI, vcpu, handler); > > - asm("int $2"); > > + if (!cpu_has_virtual_nmis()) > > + asm("int $2"); > > } > > } > > That's a host nmi. So does the PIN_BASED_VIRTUAL_NMI mean NMIs are > handled like unacked host interrupts? Not exactly. No host NMI here if Virtual_NMI is set. Copy from SDM 3B table 20-5: "If this control(Virtual NMIs) is 1, NMIs are never blocked and the “blocking by NMI” bit (bit 3) in the interruptibility-state field indicates “virtual-NMI blocking” (see Table 20-3). This control also interacts with the “NMI-window exiting” VM-execution control (see Section 20.6.2)." -- Thanks Yang, Sheng |