[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130501145753.GB6614@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:57:53 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] xen/smp/pvhvm: Don't initialize IRQ_WORKER as we are
using the native one.
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 02:25:16PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:27:20PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > There is no need to use the PV version of the IRQ_WORKER mechanism
> > > > as under PVHVM we are using the native version. The native
> > > > version is using the SMP API.
> > > >
> > > > They just sit around unused:
> > > >
> > > > 69: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork0
> > > > 83: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork1
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> > >
> > > Might be worth trying to make it work instead?
> > > Is it just because we don't set the apic->send_IPI_* functions to the
> > > xen specific version on PVHVM?
> > >
> >
> > Right. We use the baremetal mechanism to do it. And it works fine.
>
> OK, it works fine, but won't it generate many mores trap and emulate
> cycles?
No idea. We can certainly make use of the PV IPI mechanism for IRQ_WORKER
type mechaism but I would have to play with xentrace to get a good handle
of what is involved (And how the v Posted interrupt thing affects this).
Right now that is something I can't do (buried in bugs).
--
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