Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> Somthing else that came up in a conversation with Dor: the need for a >> clean way to raise a guest interrupt. The guest may be sleeping in >> userspace, scheduled out, or running on another cpu (and requiring an >> ipi to get it out of guest mode). >> > > yeah it'd be nice if I could just call a function for it rather than > poking into kvm internals ;) > >
Sure. Please report all inconveniences (they're really bugs) so we can fix them. Poking at kvm internals means you waste your time learning them, and later we can't change them. >> Right now I'm thinking about using the signal machinery since it appears >> to do exactly the right thing. >> > > signals are *expensive* though. > > I think the expensive part of signals is userspace delivery. If they are always blocked in userspace, they become just another IPC channel. I plan to add a signal mask to KVM_RUN a la pselect() so that userspace can dequeue signals instead of using a signal handler. > If you design an interrupt interface, it'd rock if you could make it > such that it is "raise <this> interrupt within <x> miliseconds from > now", rather than making it mostly synchronous. That way irq mitigation > becomes part of the interface rather than having to duplicate it all > over the virtual drivers... > Can't it be done by a helper function using a timer and a signal (or whatever mechanism we use to wake up vcpus)? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
