quoted text > On Thursday 18 March 2010 05:14:52 Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
>> On 03/16/2010 11:28 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 10:34:33 Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:32 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/16/2010 09:48 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but there is a scope between kvm_guest_enter and really running
>>>>>> in guest os, where a perf event might overflow. Anyway, the scope is
>>>>>> very narrow, I will change it to use flag PF_VCPU.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is also a window between setting the flag and calling 'int '
>>>>> where an NMI might happen and be accounted incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps separate the 'int ' into a direct call into perf and another
>>>>> call for the rest of NMI handling. I don't see how it would work on
>>>>> svm though - AFAICT the NMI is held whereas vmx swallows it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess NMIs
>>>>> will be disabled until the next IRET so it isn't racy, just tricky.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if vmexit does break NMI context or not. Hardware NMI
>>>> context isn't reentrant till a IRET. YangSheng would like to double
>>>> check it.
>>>>
>>> After more check, I think VMX won't remained NMI block state for host.
>>> That's means, if NMI happened and processor is in VMX non-root mode, it
>>> would only result in VMExit, with a reason indicate that it's due to NMI
>>> happened, but no more state change in the host.
>>>
>>> So in that meaning, there _is_ a window between VMExit and KVM handle the
>>> NMI. Moreover, I think we _can't_ stop the re-entrance of NMI handling
>>> code because "int " don't have effect to block following NMI.
>>>
>>> And if the NMI sequence is not important(I think so), then we need to
>>> generate a real NMI in current vmexit-after code. Seems let APIC send a
>>> NMI IPI to itself is a good idea.
>>>
>>> I am debugging a patch based on apic->send_IPI_self(NMI_VECTOR) to
>>> replace "int ". Something unexpected is happening...
>>>
>> You can't use the APIC to send vectors 0x00-0x1f, or at least, aren't
>> supposed to be able to.
>>
> Um? Why?
>
> Especially kernel is already using it to deliver NMI.
>
>
That's the only defined case, and it is defined because the vector field
is ignore for DM_NMI. Vol 3A (exact section numbers may vary depending
on your version).
8.5.1 / 8.6.1
'100 (NMI) Delivers an NMI interrupt to the target processor or
processors. The vector information is ignored'
8.5.2 Valid Interrupt Vectors
'Local and I/O APICs support 240 of these vectors (in the range of 16 to
255) as valid interrupts.'
8.8.4 Interrupt Acceptance for Fixed Interrupts
'...; vectors 0 through 15 are reserved by the APIC (see also: Section
8.5.2, "Valid Interrupt Vectors")'
So I misremembered, apparently you can deliver interrupts 0x10-0x1f, but
vectors 0x00-0x0f are not valid to send via APIC or I/O APIC.
Zach
--
