On Wed, 1 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 02:25:16PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:27:20PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > > There is no need to use the PV version of the IRQ_WORKER mechanism > > > > > as under PVHVM we are using the native version. The native > > > > > version is using the SMP API. > > > > > > > > > > They just sit around unused: > > > > > > > > > > 69: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork0 > > > > > 83: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork1 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Might be worth trying to make it work instead? > > > > Is it just because we don't set the apic->send_IPI_* functions to the > > > > xen specific version on PVHVM? > > > > > > > > > > Right. We use the baremetal mechanism to do it. And it works fine. > > > > OK, it works fine, but won't it generate many mores trap and emulate > > cycles? > > No idea. We can certainly make use of the PV IPI mechanism for IRQ_WORKER > type mechaism but I would have to play with xentrace to get a good handle > of what is involved (And how the v Posted interrupt thing affects this). > > Right now that is something I can't do (buried in bugs).
OK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
