Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 V7] qemu,qmp: add inject-nmi qmp command

[Blue Swirl]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Gleb Natapov <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:32:50PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 01:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >On 6 April 2011 20:34, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>> >>http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/index.jsp?topic=/liaai/crashdump/liaaicrashdumpnmiipmi.htm
>> >>
>> >>If an OS is totally hosed (spinning with interrupts disabled), and NMI can
>> >>be used to generate a crash dump.
>> >>
>> >>It's a debug feature and modelling it exactly the way we are probably makes
>> >>sense for other architectures too.  The real semantics are basically force
>> >>guest crash dump.
>> >Ah, right. (There isn't really an equivalent to this on ARM since
>> >we don't have a real NMI equivalent. So any implementation for ARM
>> >qemu would be board dependent since you could wire a watchdog up to
>> >any interrupt.)
>> >
>> >Should we try to pick a command name that says what it's supposed to
>> >do rather than how it happens to be implemented on x86 ?
>>
>> Yup, I was thinking the same thing after I sent the note above.  If
>> we call it 'force-crash-dump', we can implement it as an NMI on
>> target-i386 and potentially as something else on a different target.
>>
> NMI does not have to generate crash dump on every guest we support.
> Actually even for windows guest it does not generate one without
> tweaking registry. For all I know there is a guest that checks mail when
> NMI arrives. Lets give meaningful name, like inject-nmi, for nmi
> injection command.

I'd prefer something more generic like these:
raise /address@hidden:l1int
lower /i44FX-pcihost/address@hidden/pinD

The clumsier syntax shouldn't be a problem, since this would be a
system developer tool.

Some kind of IRQ registration would be needed for this to work without
lots of changes.