On 12/12/2010 01:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Jan Kiszkajan.kis...@siemens.com
PCI 2.3 allows to generically disable IRQ sources at device level. This
enables us to share IRQs of such devices on the host side when passing
them to a guest.
However, IRQ disabling via the PCI config space is
From: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
PCI 2.3 allows to generically disable IRQ sources at device level. This
enables us to share IRQs of such devices on the host side when passing
them to a guest.
However, IRQ disabling via the PCI config space is more costly than
masking the line via
PCI 2.3 allows to generically disable IRQ sources at device level. This
enables us to share IRQs of such devices between on the host side when
passing them to a guest.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
include/linux/kvm_host.h |1 +
virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c | 194
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:49:20PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
PCI 2.3 allows to generically disable IRQ sources at device level. This
enables us to share IRQs of such devices between on the host side when
passing them to a guest.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
Am 02.11.2010 18:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:49:20PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
PCI 2.3 allows to generically disable IRQ sources at device level. This
enables us to share IRQs of such devices between on the host side when
passing them to a guest.
Signed-off-by:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -99,12 +228,23 @@ static void kvm_assigned_dev_ack_irq(struct
kvm_irq_ack_notifier *kian)
/* The guest irq may be shared so this ack may be
* from another device.
*/
- spin_lock(dev-intx_lock);
+
Am 02.11.2010 19:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
dev-host_irq_disabled = false;
}
- spin_unlock(dev-intx_lock);
+out:
+ spin_unlock_irq(dev-intx_lock);
+
+ if (reassert)
+ kvm_set_irq(dev-kvm,
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void kvm_free_assigned_device(struct kvm *kvm,
pci_reset_function(assigned_dev-dev);
+ /*
+ * Unmask the IRQ at PCI level once the reset is done - the next user
+ * may not expect the IRQ being masked.
+ */
+ if
Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void kvm_free_assigned_device(struct kvm
*kvm,
pci_reset_function(assigned_dev-dev);
+/*
+ * Unmask the IRQ at PCI level once the reset is done - the
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
dev-host_irq_disabled = false;
}
-spin_unlock(dev-intx_lock);
+out:
+
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void kvm_free_assigned_device(struct kvm
*kvm,
pci_reset_function(assigned_dev-dev);
+ /*
+
Am 02.11.2010 19:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
dev-host_irq_disabled = false;
}
-
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void kvm_free_assigned_device(struct kvm
*kvm,
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 19:40 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
dev-host_irq_disabled = false;
}
-spin_unlock(dev-intx_lock);
+out:
+
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:30:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void
Am 02.11.2010 20:14, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
BTW block userspace access uses a global spinlock which will likely hurt
us on multi-CPU. Switching that to something more SMP friendly, e.g. a
per-device spinlock, might be a good idea: I don't see why that lock and
queue are global.
Been
Am 02.11.2010 20:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:30:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:58:36PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 20:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:30:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 02.11.2010
19 matches
Mail list logo
