On 06/11/2012 01:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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? Yes (a minor one). -- 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
