[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64F9B87B6B770947A9F8391472E032160A91BB3D@ehost011-8.exch011.intermedia.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:31:18 -0800
From: "Dor Laor" <dor.laor@...ranet.com>
To: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Avi Kivity" <avik@...ranet.com>
Cc: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<akpm@...l.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 10/13] KVM: Wire up hypercall handlers toa central arch-independent location
>
>
>> Somthing else that came up in a conversation with Dor: the need for a
>> clean way to raise a guest interrupt. The guest may be sleeping in
>> userspace, scheduled out, or running on another cpu (and requiring an
>> ipi to get it out of guest mode).
>
>yeah it'd be nice if I could just call a function for it rather than
>poking into kvm internals ;)
>
>> Right now I'm thinking about using the signal machinery since it
appears
>> to do exactly the right thing.
>
>signals are *expensive* though.
>
>If you design an interrupt interface, it'd rock if you could make it
>such that it is "raise <this> interrupt within <x> miliseconds from
>now", rather than making it mostly synchronous. That way irq mitigation
>becomes part of the interface rather than having to duplicate it all
>over the virtual drivers...
Why do you need to raise an interrupt within a timeout?
I thought on just asking for a synchronous, as-fast-as-you-can-get
interrupt. If you need an interrupt that should pop within some
milliseconds you can set a timer.
>
>
>
>--
>if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at)
linux.intel.com
>Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via
>http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists