> Am 03.06.2014 um 07:54 schrieb Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:25:11PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >>> On 20.05.14 10:30, Gavin Shan wrote: >>> If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed to guest, we >>> needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the guest to detect and recover >>> it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so that the guest >>> can have chance to handle that. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> How does the guest learn about this failure? We'd need to inject an error >> into it, no? >> >> I think what you want is an irqfd that the in-kernel eeh code notifies when >> it sees a failure. When such an fd exists, the kernel skips its own error >> handling. > > Well... we don't have irqfd support for book3s HV upstream yet. The > way the current code is, we have to turn on GSI routing, which puts a > hard and relatively small limit on the hardware IRQ numbers we can use > as it uses a flat array indexed by hardware IRQ number. Which is a > problem that I need to solve somehow, Please sync up with the ARM folks on this - they were also unhappy about the routing requirements for irqfd ;). > but it makes using an irqfd > unattractive in the short term. For EEH it could as well be a dumb eventfd - really just a side channel that can tell user space that something happened asynchronously :). Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
