On 06/11/2012 01:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:01:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
>> >
>> > Well, IIRC, the "don't loop over all vcpus with IRQs or preemption
>> > disabled" w
; Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI
> interrupts
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:01:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:01:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Well, IIRC, the "don't loop over all vcpus with IRQs or preemption
> > disabled" was one argument against direct legacy interrupt injection a
On 06/08/2012 05:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>>
>> Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Well, IIRC, the "don't loop over all vcpus with IRQs or preemption
> disabled" was one argument against direct legacy interrupt injection as
> well. That's what I kept in mind from those discussions. Maybe Avi can
On 2012-06-08 16:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> you suggesting we need a request_edge
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> I'
On 2012-06-08 10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, A
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>
> On 06/01/2012 09:26
On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> you suggesting we need a request_edge
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> I'
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 15:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
> >> MSI/MSI-X vector.
> >>
> >>
> >> Taking
On 2012-06-04 15:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
>> MSI/MSI-X vector.
>>
>>
>> Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
> MSI/MSI-X vector.
>
>
> Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI handlers
> of all devices really need to apply IRQ
On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
>>> necessa
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
> >
> > I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
> > necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do
On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
>
> I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
> necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
> like have to be handled that con
On 2012-06-01 19:59, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hmm, can't we trust the information that an IRQ
grabbed here is really a MSI type?
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently not, comment added with this check (1c6c6952):
>>>
>>>* The interrupt was requested with handler = NULL, so
>>>* we use th
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:14 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-01 19:03, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
> >>> handler without I
On 2012-06-01 19:03, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
>>> handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
>>> anyway.
>>
>
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
> > handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
> > anyway.
>
> This make the IRQ handling tail a bit slower (
On 2012-06-01 18:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
> handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
> anyway.
This make the IRQ handling tail a bit slower (due to
irq_finalize_oneshot). MSIs are edge-triggered, so there w
The kernel no longer allows us to pass NULL for a hard interrupt
handler without IRQF_ONESHOT. Should have been using this flag
anyway.
Fixes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43328
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson
---
virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions
22 matches
Mail list logo
