Am 09.11.2010 13:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 01:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> This improves the IRQ forwarding for assigned devices: By using the
>> kernel's threaded IRQ scheme, we can get rid of the latency-prone work
>> queue and simplify the code in the same run.
>>
>> Moreover, we no longer have to hold assigned_dev_lock while raising the
>> guest IRQ, which can be a lenghty operation as we may have to iterate
>> over all VCPUs. The lock is now only used for synchronizing masking vs.
>> unmasking of INTx-type IRQs, thus is renames to intx_lock.
>
> Nice stuff.
>
>>
>> -#define KVM_ASSIGNED_MSIX_PENDING 0x1
>> -struct kvm_guest_msix_entry {
>> - u32 vector;
>> - u16 entry;
>> - u16 flags;
>> -};
>> -
>
> Ok, so .flags was used to handle the delay between the interrupt handler
> and the work queue, which is now done automatically by threaded
> interrupts. Good.
Yes, a nice consolidating side effect.
>
>> @@ -313,10 +276,10 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_msix(struct kvm *kvm,
>> return r;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i< dev->entries_nr; i++) {
>> - r = request_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
>> - kvm_assigned_dev_intr, 0,
>> - "kvm_assigned_msix_device",
>> - (void *)dev);
>> + r = request_threaded_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
>> + NULL, kvm_assigned_dev_thread,
>> + 0, "kvm_assigned_msix_device",
>> + (void *)dev);
>> if (r)
>> goto err;
>> }
>
>
> Should eventually be done from interrupt context. msix delivery only
> needs a routing table lookup and smp reschedule IPI, which can be done
> from interrupt context.
>
Yes, definitely. But we would have to catch the case when the guest
configures the MSI-X message to be a broadcast to all its trillion VCPUs
(once we support trillions of them).
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
