On 01/19/2010 09:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > Yes it can be done this way and I'll look into it once more. Using > exception vector is more convenient for three reasons: it allows to pass > additional data in error code, it doesn't require guest to issue EOI, > exception can be injected when interrupts are disabled by a guest. The > last one is not important for now since host doesn't inject notifications > when interrupts are disabled currently. Having Intel allocate one > exception vector for hypervisor use would be really nice though. > That's probably not going to happen, for the rather obvious reason: *you already have 224 of them*. You seem to be thinking here that vectors 0-31 have to be exceptions and 32-255 have to be interrupts. *There is no such distinction*; the only thing special about 0-31 is that we (Intel) reserve the right to control the assignments; for 32-255 the platform and OS control the assignment. You can have the guest OS take an exception on a vector above 31 just fine; you just need it to tell the hypervisor which vector it, the OS, assigned for this purpose. -hpa -- 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
