On 20/08/14 11:19, Wei Hu wrote:
> Sending to Xen, drivers and virtualization mailing lists since this might be
> of interest to the folks on these aliases.
> I am working for Microsoft to improve the performance of FreeBSD running on
> Hyper-V. Right now I am adding a feature in the vmbus driver which could
> handle the host-guest channel communications on all vCPUs simultaneously. In
> order to achieve this, the hypervisor will send same interrupt concurrently
> on all the vCPUs. The traditional way on FreeBSD to set up interrupt handling
> for devicse, such as calling bus_alloc_resource() to reserve an IRQ line, and
> then calling bus_setup_intr() to create a vector, doesn't seem to work in
> this case. It seems if the interrupt is routed via legacy IRQ, it can only be
> active on one vCPU at a time. In order to allow the same interrupt to be
> handled on all vCPUs concurrently, all I need is an IDT entry, not an IRQ
> I checked current FreeBSD code. It looks to me Xen directly uses the vector
> number IDT_EVTCHN (0x93) to achieve the same purpose. I am proposing both Xen
> and Hyper-V share this same vector. Following is a little bit detail of my
> proposal for the changes in the current kernel.
> 1. In machdep.c:
> #ifdef XENHVM
> setidt(IDT_EVTCHN, &IDTVEC(xen_intr_upcall), SDT_SYSIGT, SEL_UPL, 0);
> setidt(IDT_EVTCHN, &IDTVEC(hv_vmbus_intr), SDT_SYSIGT, SEL_UPL, 0);
> 2. Apic_vector.S
> Add IDTVEC(hv_vmbus_intr) to call Hyper-V vmbus interrupt service routine.
> Any thoughts, objections and feedbacks are all welcome.
I don't think using the same IDT vector is the right approach, I would
just pick a different IDT vector and use that for Hyper-V. Using the
same IDT vector (like your suggestion above) would prevent shipping a
kernel with with both Hyper-V and Xen support (like it's done now in
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to