On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:01:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > >> > >> Pls correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > Well, IIRC, the "don't loop over all vcpus with IRQs or preemption > > disabled" was one argument against direct legacy interrupt injection as > > well. That's what I kept in mind from those discussions. Maybe Avi can > > comment on the current position. > > It's still my position. > > IMO we need something like struct gfn_to_hva_cache for interrupts. If > it's in the cache, we fast-path it from the interrupt handler. If not, > fall back to a workqueue and let it refill the cache. And you class the irqfd behaviour of injecting multicast with interrupts disabled a bug then? > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
