[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F58FD6.907@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:58:30 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification
interface
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>>
>> One day we'll have lockless injection and we'll want to drop this. I
>> guess if we create the fd ourselves we can make it work, but I don't
>> see how we can do this with eventfd.
>>
>>
>
> Hmm...this is a good point. There probably is no way to use eventfd
> "off the shelf" in a way that doesn't cause this callback to be in a
> critical section. Should we just worry about switching away from
> eventfd when this occurs, or should I implement a custom anon-fd now?
>
Something else to consider: eventfd supports calling eventfd_signal()
from interrupt context, so
even if the callback were not invoked from a preempt/irq off CS due to
the wqh->lock, the context may still be a CS anyway. Now, userspace and
vbus based injection do not need to worry about this, but I wonder if
this is a desirable attribute for some other source (device-assignment
perhaps)?
If so, is there a way to design the lockless-injection code such that
its still friendly to irq-context, or is this a mode that we would never
want to support anyway? I think this would be a good thing to have at
least to maintain compatibility with the existing eventfd interface,
which has its own advantages.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists