linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:23:50 -0400
From:	lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Dor Laor <dor.laor@...ranet.com>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:38:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Looking at two random servers here and a desktop, interrupts are 
> unshared except for usb.  A laptop was not so lucky.  So "no chance" is 
> a bit extreme.
> 
> I agree it's far from optimal, but it is less limited than you imply.

Well with 4 PCI interrupts, it doesn't take that many PCI devices before
you must be sharing.  Of course it seems some higher end systems split
up the PCI bus in some way and run different IRQs from the APIC to
different slots.  I suspect that is how I see IRQ's of 177, 185, 193,
201, 209, etc on some systems.

If you have a server with an IO APIC then I suppose you have a rather
good chance of avoiding shared IRQs for the most part.

--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/