Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V4 5/5] Documentation/kvm : Add documentation on Hypercalls and features used for PV spinlock

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-01-17 14:51:26]:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:56:50PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
> > 
> > > > The problem case I was thinking of was when guest VCPU would have issued
> > > > HLT with interrupts disabled. I guess one option is to inject an NMI,
> > > > and have the guest kernel NMI handler recognize this and make
> > > > adjustments such that the vcpu avoids going back to HLT instruction.
> > > > 
> > > Just kick vcpu out of a guest mode and adjust rip to point after HLT on
> > > next re-entry. Don't forget to call vmx_clear_hlt().
> > 
> > Looks bit hackish to me compared to having another hypercall to yield!
> > 
> Do not see anything hackish about it. But what you described above (the
> part I replied to) is not another hypercall, but yet another NMI source
> and special handling in a guest.

True, which I didn't exactly like and hence was suggesting we use
another hypercall to let spinning vcpu sleep.

> So what hypercall do you mean?

The hypercall is described below:

> > > > Having another hypercall to do yield/sleep (rather than effecting that
> > > > via HLT) seems like an alternate clean solution here ..

and was implemented in an earlier version of this patch (v2) as
KVM_HC_WAIT_FOR_KICK hypercall:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/23/211

Having the hypercall makes the intent of vcpu (to sleep on a kick) clear to 
hypervisor vs assuming that because of a trapped HLT instruction (which
will anyway won't work when yield_on_hlt=0).

- vatsa


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel