[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100916094324.GE20864@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:43:24 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: enable irq injection from interrupt context
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10:55AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:54:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > To avoid bouncing irqfd injection out to workqueue context,
> > > > we must support injecting irqs from local interrupt
> > > > context. Doing this seems to only require disabling
> > > > irqs locally.
> > > >
> > > > RFC, completely untested, x86 only.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > We do not want to disable irqs for a long time and some of code paths
> > > under lock involve looping over all cpus. For MSI injection path is
> > > lockless and this is the only case that matters,
> >
> > MSI only appeared in rhel6, older guests still use level interrupts.
> So they are already slow for other reasons.
They are slower than MSI, but I do not want irqfd to be slower
than ioctls.
> > Which paths require looping over all cpus? Do PCI interrupts
> > need this?
> >
> All interrupts need it. IOAPIC has a loop to find dst cpu for interrupt.
> Pic has a loop to find cpu in virtual wire mode.
>
> --
> Gleb.
--
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