Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Remove support for reporting coalesced APIC IRQs

2013-05-14 Thread Gleb Natapov
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:30:33PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:14:32PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: From: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com Since the arrival of posted interrupt support we can no

Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Remove support for reporting coalesced APIC IRQs

2013-05-13 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:14:32PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: From: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com Since the arrival of posted interrupt support we can no longer guarantee that coalesced IRQs are always reported to the IRQ

Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Remove support for reporting coalesced APIC IRQs

2013-05-02 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: From: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com Since the arrival of posted interrupt support we can no longer guarantee that coalesced IRQs are always reported to the IRQ source. Moreover, accumulated APIC timer events could cause a busy

[PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Remove support for reporting coalesced APIC IRQs

2013-04-28 Thread Jan Kiszka
From: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com Since the arrival of posted interrupt support we can no longer guarantee that coalesced IRQs are always reported to the IRQ source. Moreover, accumulated APIC timer events could cause a busy loop when a VCPU should rather be halted. The consensus is to