On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:24:44PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:11:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:06:20PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> > > > >> So instead of > > > >> > > > >> - guest reads/writes msix > > > >> - kvm filters mmio, implements some, passes others to userspace > > > >> > > > >> we have > > > >> > > > >> - guest reads/writes msix > > > >> - kvm implements all > > > >> - some writes generate an additional notification to userspace > > > > > > > >I suppose we don't need to generate notification to userspace? Because > > > >every > > > >read/write is handled by kernel, and userspace just need interface to > > > >kernel to > > > >get/set the entry - and well, does userspace need to do it when kernel > > > >can handle > > > >all of them? Maybe not... > > > > > > We could have the kernel handle addr/data writes by setting up an > > > internal interrupt routing. A disadvantage is that more work is > > > needed if we emulator interrupt remapping in qemu. > > > > As an alternative, interrupt remapping will need some API rework, right? > > Existing APIs only pass address/data for msi. > > > IIRC interrupt remapping works with address/data to. It just interpret > it differently from apic.
Yes. So since our APIs use address/data, this is an argument for doing the remapping in kernel. > -- > Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
