[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD5C205.5070901@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:01:41 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>>
>> Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Well, IIRC, the "don't loop over all vcpus with IRQs or preemption
> disabled" was one argument against direct legacy interrupt injection as
> well. That's what I kept in mind from those discussions. Maybe Avi can
> comment on the current position.
It's still my position.
IMO we need something like struct gfn_to_hva_cache for interrupts. If
it's in the cache, we fast-path it from the interrupt handler. If not,
fall back to a workqueue and let it refill the cache.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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