Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1302438
| From | Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Threaded MSI interrupt for VFIO PCI device |
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNR0Z-6zh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qBGXo-j5-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGowS-4RZ-77@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGpMd-5PL-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGsh5-7gQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:55:12PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 16/12/2015 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote: > > The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI + the threaded handler > > added in this series. These run independently, the PI bypass simply > > makes the interrupt disappear from the host when it catches it, but if > > the vCPU isn't running in the right place at the time of the interrupt, > > it gets delivered to the host, in which case the secondary consumer > > implementing handle_irq() provides a lower latency injection than the > > eventfd path. If PI isn't supported, only this latter consumer is > > registered. > > I would implement the two in a single consumer, knowing that only one of > the two parts would effectively run. But because of the possibility of > multiple consumers implementing handle_irq(), I am not sure if this is > feasible. So is it possible that we limit only one consumer with handle_irq(), as my previous response to Alex? We can extend it in future if we do need support multiple consumder implementing handle_irq()? Thanks --jyh > > > On the surface it seems like a reasonable solution, though having > > multiple consumers implementing handle_irq() seems problematic. Do we > > get multiple injections if we call them all? > > Indeed. > > > Should we have some way > > to prioritize one handler versus another? Perhaps KVM should have a > > single unified consumer that can provide that sort of logic, though we > > still need the srcu code added here to protect against registration and > > irq_handler() races. Thanks, > > I'm happy to see that we have the same doubts. :) > > Paolo > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Threaded MSI interrupt for VFIO PCI device Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com> - 2016-01-06 08:50 +0100
csiph-web