On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:43:35AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/01/2010 10:24 PM, Tom Lyon wrote: >> >>> But there are multiple msi-x interrupts, how do you know which one >>> triggered? >>> >> You don't. This would suck for KVM, I guess, but we'd need major rework of the >> generic UIO stuff to have a separate event channel for each MSI-X. >> > > Doesn't it suck for non-kvm in the same way? Multiple vectors are there > for a reason. For example, if you have a multiqueue NIC, you'd have to > process all queues instead of just the one that triggered. > >> For my purposes, collapsing all the MSI-Xs into one MSI-look-alike is fine, >> because I'd be using MSI anyways if I could. The weird Intel 82599 VF only >> supports MSI-X. >> >> So one big question is - do we expand the whole UIO framework for KVM >> requirements, or do we split off either KVM or non-VM into a separate driver? >> Hans or Greg - care to opine? >> > > Currently kvm does device assignment with its own code, I'd like to unify > it with uio, not split it off. > > Separate notifications for msi-x interrupts are just as useful for uio as > they are for kvm. I agree, there should not be a difference here for KVM vs. the "normal" version. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
