d Gamal
> ; Cathy Avery ; LKML ker...@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: hyperv: implement PV IPI send
> hypercalls
>
> Wanpeng Li writes:
>
> > Hi Paolo and Radim,
> >
> > I have already completed the patches for linux guest/kvm/qemu w/ vC
Wanpeng Li writes:
> Hi Paolo and Radim,
>
> I have already completed the patches for linux guest/kvm/qemu w/ vCPUs
> <= 64, however, extra complication as the ex in hyperv should be
> introduced for vCPUs > 64, so do you think vCPU <=64 is enough for
> linux guest or should me introduce two hype
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 03:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>
> 2018-06-22 16:56+0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
> > Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
> > any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
> > will take only one VMEXIT.
> >
> > Current H
Radim Krčmář writes:
> 2018-06-22 16:56+0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
>> +
>> +/* We fail only when APIC is disabled */
>> +if (!kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, &irq, NULL))
>> +return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>
> Does Windows use this even for 1 VCPU IPI?
>
2018-06-22 16:56+0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
> Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
> any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
> will take only one VMEXIT.
>
> Current Hyper-V TLFS (v5.0b) claims that HvCallSendSyntheticClusterIpi
>
Using hypercall for sending IPIs is faster because this allows to specify
any number of vCPUs (even > 64 with sparse CPU set), the whole procedure
will take only one VMEXIT.
Current Hyper-V TLFS (v5.0b) claims that HvCallSendSyntheticClusterIpi
hypercall can't be 'fast' (passing parameters through
6 matches
Mail list logo
