WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Don't enable irq for machine check vmexit

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Don't enable irq for machine check vmexit
From: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:25:40 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:26:07 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C791E2B9.93C7%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C8EDE645B81E5141A8C6B2F73FD9265118FED93B52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C791E2B9.93C7%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcqlpWnLbYBV1hx/SiKbBgRcbuXrewApwMQgAAV2gqIAAuP2YAABevi3AE5rBwA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Don't enable irq for machine check vmexit
Yes, agree and this patch is ok for me. Thanks very much.

--jyh

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:59 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong; Tim Deegan
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Don't enable irq for machine check vmexit
>
>On 05/02/2010 14:36, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> How about the attached alternative, which avoids repeated reads of
>>> VM_INTR_INFO? Also I'm not sure whether checking for
>>> VM_EXIT_REASONS_FAILED_VMENTRY is useful, so I removed it. After all,
>>> EXIT_REASON_MCE_DURING_VMENTRY should imply it anyway.
>>
>> Thanks for your patch. Yes, it is much better to avoid the repeated read.
>>
>> I'm not sure if it is ok if we don't check the 
>> VM_EXIT_REASONS_FAILED_VMENTRY.
>> Checking the SDM and seems it is ok. In fact, I didn't find effective method
>> to test this VMEntry MCE failed case, althgouh I can test MCE VMExit with
>> EXIT_REASON_EXCEPTION_NMI case easily. (I will try to find a method to test
>> this VMEntry failure case next week, maybe poison the VMCS range can trigger
>> it, I'm not sure).
>
>Well, we don't seem to know what bit 31 is for. Or, at least, we don't know
>how it should affect our behaviour in the vmexit handler. So looking at it
>does seem a bit pointless.
>
> -- Keir
>


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