On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:57:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 02/08/2011 04:47 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >> >I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be > >> >removed. For some cases it is still beneficial, see example case on > >> >commit e48258009d941, which is not handled by kick coalescing of > >> >kvm_vcpu_kick. > >> > >> On the other hand, I think it can be done differently. For example > >> LVT0 is probably programmed to mask interrupts; we can simply look > >> at it and not kick if that's the case. We can use notifiers from > >> the lapic to the pic to avoid looking at lapic data. > >> > >I believe this is what my patch is doing. Look at pic_unlock(). The code > >search for vcpu to kick by calling kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr() function > >(which checks that LVT is masked). > > It does indeed. > > >If no vcpu is found we kicks bsp. > >Why? I removed that. > > The code that looks for a vcpu that has LVT0 unmasked is newer than > the isr_ack code (see cfe149e91b82). So it looks like the isr_ack > code is indeed unnecessary now. Right. Patch looks fine. -- 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
