[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206041235540.3086@ionos>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:21:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"yongjie.ren@...el.com" <yongjie.ren@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI
interrupts
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
> >
> > I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
> > necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
> > like have to be handled that conservatively, but maybe I'm missing some
> > detail.
> >
>
> btw, I'm hoping we can unthread assigned MSIs. If the delivery is
> unicast, we can precalculate everything and all the handler has to do is
> set the IRR, KVM_REQ_EVENT, and kick the vcpu. All of these can be done
> from interrupt context with just RCU locking.
There is really no need to run MSI/MSI-X interrupts threaded for
KVM. I'm running the patch below for quite some time and it works like
a charm.
Thanks,
tglx
----
Index: linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
+++ linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
}
#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSI
-static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi(int irq, void *dev_id)
+static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
#endif
#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSIX
-static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix(int irq, void *dev_id)
+static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
int index = find_index_from_host_irq(assigned_dev, irq);
@@ -346,9 +346,8 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
}
dev->host_irq = dev->dev->irq;
- if (request_threaded_irq(dev->host_irq, NULL,
- kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi, 0,
- dev->irq_name, dev)) {
+ if (request_irq(dev->host_irq, kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler, 0,
+ dev->irq_name, dev)) {
pci_disable_msi(dev->dev);
return -EIO;
}
@@ -373,9 +372,9 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
return r;
for (i = 0; i < dev->entries_nr; i++) {
- r = request_threaded_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
- NULL, kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix,
- 0, dev->irq_name, dev);
+ r = request_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
+ kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler, 0,
+ dev->irq_name, dev);
if (r)
goto err;
}
--
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