: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI
interrupts
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
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
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 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
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
I'm just wondering if that
On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq()
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka
On 2012-06-08 10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
I'm just wondering if that
On 2012-06-08 16:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq()
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
necessary for all use
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
MSI/MSI-X vector.
Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI handlers
of all devices really need to apply
On 2012-06-04 15:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
MSI/MSI-X vector.
Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI handlers
of
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 15:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
MSI/MSI-X vector.
Taking KVM aside, my
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
like have to be handled that
The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
anyway.
Fixes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43328
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson alex.william...@redhat.com
---
virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c |4 ++--
1
On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
anyway.
This make the IRQ handling tail a bit slower (due to
irq_finalize_oneshot). MSIs are edge-triggered, so there was
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
anyway.
This make the IRQ handling tail a bit slower (due to
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:14 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-01 19:03, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
handler without IRQF_ONESHOT.
On 2012-06-01 19:59, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hmm, can't we trust the information that an IRQ
grabbed here is really a MSI type?
Apparently not, comment added with this check (1c6c6952):
* The interrupt was requested with handler = NULL, so
* we use the default primary handler
21 matches
Mail list logo
