[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54AFEC00.80507@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:56:00 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Feng Wu <feng.wu@...el.com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, gleb@...nel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
joro@...tes.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com, eric.auger@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 13/26] KVM: Define a new interface kvm_find_dest_vcpu() for
VT-d PI
On 09/01/2015 15:54, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> There are two points relevant to this patch in new KVM's implementation,
> ("KVM: x86: amend APIC lowest priority arbitration",
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/9/362)
>
> 1) lowest priority depends on TPR
> 2) there is no need for balancing
>
> (1) has to be considered with PI as well.
The chipset doesn't support it. :(
> I kept (2) to avoid whining from people building on that behaviour, but
> lowest priority backed by PI could be transparent without it.
>
> Patch below removes the balancing, but I am not sure this is a price we
> allowed ourselves to pay ... what are your opinions?
I wouldn't mind, but it requires a lot of benchmarking.
Paolo
--
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