On 06/05/2011 08:19 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 05.06.2011, at 18:33, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 06/05/2011 07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Could you elaborate what you mean here? I'm not really following. Are > >> >> you suggesting a new arch-generic interface? (Pardon my ignorance). > >> > > >> > Using KVM_IRQ_LINE everywhere except s390, not just in x86 and ARM. > >> > >> An in-kernel MPIC implementation is coming for PPC, so I don't see any reason to switch from something that works now. > > > > Right, this is spilled milk. > > > > Does the ppc qemu implementation raise KVM_INTERRUPT solely from the vcpu thread? > > Well, without iothread it used to obviously. Now that we have an iothread, it calls ioctl(KVM_INTERRUPT) from a separate thread. That's 100% broken, as api.txt states. Besides consistency, this is to allow an eventual move to a syscall interface where the vcpu is derived from current rather than an fd parameter. > The code also doesn't forcefully wake up the vcpu thread, so yes, I think here's a chance for at least delaying interrupt delivery. Chances are pretty slim we don't get out of the vcpu thread at all :). Maybe slim, but still a major bug. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
