On 2011-03-15 21:12, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-03-15 18:10, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26:17PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> KVM only requires to set the raised IRQ in CPUState and to kick the
>>> receiving vcpu if it is remote.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> kvm-all.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
>>> index 226843c..25ab545 100644
>>> --- a/kvm-all.c
>>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
>>> @@ -650,6 +650,15 @@ static CPUPhysMemoryClient kvm_cpu_phys_memory_client = {
>>> .log_stop = kvm_log_stop,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static void kvm_handle_interrupt(CPUState *env, int mask)
>>> +{
>>> + env->interrupt_request |= mask;
>>> +
>>> + if (!qemu_cpu_is_self(env)) {
>>> + qemu_cpu_kick(env);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Not sure its worthwhile to allow different handlers. The advantage over
>> tcg version is that its shorter, without cpu_unlink_tb and icount
>> handler?
>
> I thought about this again as well before posting, and I came to the
> conclusion that an important advantage is avoiding TCG surprises in KVM
> code paths. This way, KVM does not need to bother if cpu_unlink_tb or
> icount related code changes. Maybe I should have added this to the
> commit message.
What's your opinion on this? Should I repost the remaining three with
comments adjusted?
Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
