Gregory Haskins wrote:
This patch provides the ability to dynamically declare and map an
interrupt-request handle to an x86 8-bit vector.
Problem Statement: Emulated devices (such as PCI, ISA, etc) have
interrupt routing done via standard PC mechanisms (MP-table, ACPI,
etc). However, we also want to support a new class of devices
which exist in a new virtualized namespace and therefore should
not try to piggyback on these emulated mechanisms. Rather, we
create a way to dynamically register interrupt resources that
acts indepent of the emulated counterpart.
On x86, a simplistic view of the interrupt model is that each core
has a local-APIC which can recieve messages from APIC-compliant
routing devices (such as IO-APIC and MSI) regarding details about
an interrupt (such as which vector to raise). These routing devices
are controlled by the OS so they may translate a physical event
(such as "e1000: raise an RX interrupt") to a logical destination
(such as "inject IDT vector 46 on core 3"). A dynirq is a virtual
implementation of such a router (think of it as a virtual-MSI, but
without the coupling to an existing standard, such as PCI).
The model is simple: A guest OS can allocate the mapping of "IRQ"
handle to "vector/core" in any way it sees fit, and provide this
information to the dynirq module running in the host. The assigned
IRQ then becomes the sole handle needed to inject an IDT vector
to the guest from a host. A host entity that wishes to raise an
interrupt simple needs to call kvm_inject_dynirq(irq) and the routing
is performed transparently.
+static int
+_kvm_inject_dynirq(struct kvm *kvm, struct dynirq *entry)
+{
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+
+ vcpu = kvm->vcpus[entry->dest];
+ if (!vcpu) {
+ ret = -ENOENT;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ ret = kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, entry->vec, 1);
+
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
Given that you're using the apic to inject the IRQ, you'll need an EOI.
So what's the difference between dynirq and MSI, performance wise?
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
