On 30/06/15 21:19, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:04:05PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> So far, the only use of the HW interrupt facility is the timer,
>> implying that the active state is context-switched for each vcpu,
>> as the device is is shared across all vcpus.
>>
>> This does not work for a device that has been assigned to a VM,
>> as the guest is entierely in control of that device (the HW is
>> not shared). In that case, it makes sense to bypass the whole
>> active state switchint, and only track the deactivation of the
>> interrupt.
>>
> The discinction here between shared and non-shared feels a bit arbitrary
> (it may not be, but just feel that way) and I can't easily convince
> myself that this is the logical/correct/all-encompassing word to
> describe the nature of the two devices.
Does the idea of global vs private resource feel more correct?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
