On Fri, 2024-08-02 at 07:55 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 01 2024 at 16:14, Michael Kelley wrote: > > > > I don't have a convenient way to test my sequence on KVM. > > > > > > But still fails in KVM > > > > By KVM you mean the in-kernel one that we want to kill because everyone > > should be using userspace IRQ chips these days? > > What exactly do you want to kill? In-kernel local APIC obviously needs to stay > for APICv/AVIC. The legacy PIT, PIC and I/O APIC. > And IMO, encouraging userspace I/O APIC emulation is a net negative for KVM and > the community as a whole, as the number of VMMs in use these days results in a > decent amount of duplicated work in userspace VMMs, especially when accounting > for hardware and software quirks. I don't particularly care, but I thought the general trend was towards split irqchip mode, with the local APIC in-kernel but i8259 PIC and I/O APIC (and the i8254 PIT, which was the topic of this discussion) being done in userspace. Especially if you want to support guests with APIC IDs > 255 :)
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
