lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:37:46 +0000
From:	"Zhang, Yang Z" <>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <>,
	"Wu, Feng" <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"" <>,
	"Gleb Natapov" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Alex Williamson <>,
	Jiang Liu <>
CC:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	KVM list <>,
	Eric Auger <>
Subject: RE: [v3 06/26] iommu, x86: No need to migrating irq for VT-d

Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2014-12-19:
> On 19/12/2014 02:46, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>>> If the IRQ is posted, its affinity is controlled by guest (irq
>>> <---> vCPU <----> pCPU), it has no effect when host changes its affinity.
>> That's the problem: User is able to changes it in host but it never
>> takes effect since it is actually controlled by guest. I guess it
>> will break the IRQ balance too.
> I don't think that's a problem.
> Controlling the affinity in the host affects which CPU in the host
> takes care of signaling the guest.
> If this signaling is done directly by the chipset, there is no need to
> do anything in the host and thus the host affinity can be bypassed.

I don't quite understand it. If user set an interrupt's affinity to a CPU, but he still see the interrupt delivers to other CPUs in host. Do you think it is a right behavior?

> Paolo

Best regards,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists