[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE07B2F.2040508@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:03 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH 1/2] KVM: Directly inject interrupts via irqfd
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/22/2009 05:14 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> Yeah, I was thinking about that after I initially responded to Gleb.
>>
>> I am thinking something along these lines:
>>
>> Provide a function that lets you query a GSI for whether it supports
>> LOCKLESS or not. Then we can either do one of two things:
>>
>> 1) Check for the LOCKLESS attribute at irqfd registration, fail if not
>> present
>>
>
> This is the most practical path and leads to the smallest code. However
> it has the deficiency of exposing internal implementation details to
> userspace. In theory userspace could use msi and edge-triggered
> pic/ioapic interrupts equally well, it shouldn't have to know that we
> didn't bother to lockfree ioapic/pic.
>
>> 2) Cache the LOCKLESS attribute in the irqfd structure, and either go
>> direct or defer to a workqueue depending on the flag.
>>
>
> While this leads to larger code, it is more consistent.
>
Yeah, I think you are right. Consider these two patches retracted, and
I will rewrite it with this concept in place.
Kind Regards,
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists