Hi, > > > that newer hardware for a more modernized IOAPIC? Or would something > > > like hacking the 82093AA emulation code to support more than 24 IRQs > > > be within the realm of possibility? Is it even meaningful for guest > > > VMs to "think" they're talking to an ancient IOAPIC from 1996? > > > > I think that extending an existing real device is potentially > > problematic. We don't know what dependencies closed source OSes might > > have or what they'd infer from the device. If you can't find a > > specific device with widespread support to emulate, maybe it would be > > possible to implement a generic device. Does this really solve the > > problem though, or is it just a stopgap? How would we size the ioapic > > to match the VM hardware configuration? > > Do you mean what if we update it to support N IRQs and someone comes > around and wants >N IRQs? If this is liable to happen in the future > that seems to suggest not emulating any real piece of IOAPIC HW. > > I guess giving the 82093AA more lines is the kind of thing that could > be behind a Kconfig flag for kvm. Not sure if that makes it ok though.
It would probably be easier to just have multiple ioapics. NUMA machines sometimes have one ioapic per node, and guests should be able to handle that just fine without kvm-specific hacks. take care, Gerd _______________________________________________ vfio-users mailing list vfio-users@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/vfio-users
