[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463B9FEA.8@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:04:42 -0700
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Petr Vandrovec <petr@...are.com>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Is this linux running on vmware or vmware running on linux?
>
VMware running on Linux.
> This sounds like playing with fire. Although I suppose you could do it generally
> by making software irqs trigger a general protection fault.
>
Better if you don't have to; the whole point of the swirq is faster
handling.
> What we currently have is:
> int assign_irq_vector(int irq, cpumask_t);
>
> It has a number of interesting properties such as you can change
> the vector assignment at runtime, and we can migrate the irq
> between cpus.
>
Yes, but still not enough here.
> That is pretty much the architecture we have to support msi. Although
> irq != vector not even at a fixed offset.
>
It doesn't look like you can safely allocate an exclusive IRQ here
however - the IO-APIC could always route a hardware IRQ for the matching
vector right on top of you unless, I'm misreading something.
Zach
-
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