[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 for-xen-4.5 19/20] x86/VPMU: NMI-based VPMU support
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:18:56 -0400
- Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx, suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxx, dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx, jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx, dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:19:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 09/30/2014 04:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
+static void vpmu_send_interrupt(struct vcpu *v)
+{
+ struct vlapic *vlapic;
+ u32 vlapic_lvtpc;
+
+ ASSERT( is_hvm_vcpu(v) );
+
+ vlapic = vcpu_vlapic(v);
+ if ( !is_vlapic_lvtpc_enabled(vlapic) )
+ return;
+
+ vlapic_lvtpc = vlapic_get_reg(vlapic, APIC_LVTPC);
+ if ( GET_APIC_DELIVERY_MODE(vlapic_lvtpc) == APIC_MODE_FIXED )
+ vlapic_set_irq(vcpu_vlapic(v), vlapic_lvtpc & APIC_VECTOR_MASK, 0);
+ else
+ v->nmi_pending = 1;
Is APIC_MODE_NMI guaranteed to be the only alternative to
APIC_MODE_FIXED here (even for a buggy guest)? I don't recall
having seen code preventing other modes to be set, but even if
such code exists, an ASSERT() here seems quite desirable to me
(perhaps after re-structuring this to a switch() this could also be
a debug log message).
This was a simple code move from original VPMU implementation
(vpmu_do_interrupt()) to a separate routine, only to avoid duplication
of this code since it may now be called from different places.
This is HVM guest's view of LVTPC, not Xen's, and has nothing to do with
VPMU interrupt mode (i.e. vector vs NMI) if that's what you were
thinking about.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
