On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: > Gleb Natapov wrote on 2013-02-25: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:42:52AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: > >> Avi Kivity wrote on 2013-02-25: > >>> I didn't really follow, but is the root cause the need to keep track > >>> of interrupt coalescing? If so we can recommend that users use > >>> KVM_IRQ_LINE when coalescing is unneeded, and move interrupt injection > >>> with irq coalescing support to vcpu context. > >> So we can hide the capability KVM_CAP_IRQ_INJECT_STATUS when posted > > interrupt is enabled to force users doesn't to use KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS. Does > > this acceptable? > >> > >> The only case in KVM that need to know the interrupt injection status is vlapic > > timer. But since vlapic timer and vcpu are always in same pcpu, so there is no > > problem. > >> > > Not really. The primary user of this interface is RTC interrupt > > re-injection for Windows guests. > So without KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS capability, RTC cannot work well? > Windows guests may experience timedrift under CPU overcommit scenario. -- Gleb. -- 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
