[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120802084252.GC24929@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:42:52 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: avi@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] kvm: KVM_EOIFD, an eventfd for EOIs
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 07:12:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > kvm_eoifd.fd specifies the eventfd used for
> > > > > > > +notification. KVM_EOIFD_FLAG_DEASSIGN is used to de-assign an eoifd
> > > > > > > +once assigned. KVM_EOIFD also requires additional bits set in
> > > > > > > +kvm_eoifd.flags to bind to the proper interrupt line. The
> > > > > > > +KVM_EOIFD_FLAG_LEVEL_IRQFD indicates that kvm_eoifd.key is provided
> > > > > > > +and is a key from a level triggered interrupt (configured from
> > > > > > > +KVM_IRQFD using KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_LEVEL). The EOI notification is bound
> > > > > > > +to the same GSI and irqchip input as the irqfd. Both kvm_eoifd.key
> > > > > > > +and KVM_EOIFD_FLAG_LEVEL_IRQFD must be specified on assignment and
> > > > > > > +de-assignment of KVM_EOIFD. A level irqfd may only be bound to a
> > > > > > > +single eoifd. KVM_CAP_EOIFD_LEVEL_IRQFD indicates support of
> > > > > > > +KVM_EOIFD_FLAG_LEVEL_IRQFD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm returning the key means we'll need to keep refcounting for source
> > > > > > IDs around forever. I liked passing the fd better: make implementation
> > > > > > match interface and not the other way around.
> > > > >
> > > > > False, a source ID has a finite lifecycle. The fd approach was broken.
> > > > > Holding the irqfd context imposed too many dependencies between eoifd
> > > > > and irqfd necessitating things like one interface disabling another. I
> > > > > thoroughly disagree with that approach.
> > > >
> > > > You keep saying this but it is still true: once irqfd
> > > > is closed eoifd does not get any more interrupts.
> > >
> > > How does that matter?
> >
> > Well if it does not get events it is disabled.
> > so you have one ifc disabling another, anyway.
>
> And a level irqfd without an eoifd can never be de-asserted. Either we
> make modular components, assemble them to do useful work, and
> disassemble them independently so they can be used by future interfaces
> or we bundle eoifd as just an option of irqfd. Which is it gonna be?
I'm fine just making it an option. I think Gleb wanted a separate
EOIFD to handle timedrift but it later seemed that eventfd is not
suitable for that?
--
MST
--
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