[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [KVM PATCH v4 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification interface
    Avi Kivity wrote:
    > Gregory Haskins wrote:
    >> One thing I was thinking here was that I could create a flag for the
    >> kvm_irqfd() function for something like "KVM_IRQFD_MODE_CLEAR". This
    >> flag when specified at creation time will cause the event to execute a
    >> clear operation instead of a set when triggered. That way, the default
    >> mode is an edge-triggered set. The non-default mode is to trigger a
    >> clear. Level-triggered ints could therefore create two irqfds, one for
    >> raising, the other for clearing.
    > That's my second choice option.
    >> An alternative is to abandon the use of eventfd, and allow the irqfd to
    >> be a first-class anon-fd. The parameters passed to the write/signal()
    >> function could then indicate the desired level. The disadvantage would
    >> be that it would not be compatible with eventfd, so we would need to
    >> decide if the tradeoff is worth it.
    > I would really like to keep using eventfd. Which is why I asked
    > Davide about the prospects of direct callbacks (vs wakeups).

    I saw that request. That would be ideal.

    >> OTOH, I suspect level triggered interrupts will be primarily in the
    >> legacy domain, so perhaps we do not need to worry about it too much.
    >> Therefore, another option is that we *could* simply set the stake in the
    >> ground that legacy/level cannot use irqfd.
    > This is my preferred option. For a virtio-net-server in the kernel,
    > we'd service its eventfd in qemu, raising and lowering the pci
    > interrupt in the traditional way.
    > But we'd still need to know when to lower the interrupt. How?

    IIUC, isn't that usually device/subsystem specific, and out of scope of
    the GSI delivery vehicle? For instance, most devices I have seen with
    level ints have a register in their device register namespace for acking
    the int. As an aside, this is what causes some of the grief in dealing
    with shared interrupts like KVM pass-through and/or threaded-isrs:
    There isn't a standardized way to ACK them.

    You may also see some generalization of masking/acking in things like
    the MSI-X table. But again, this would be out of scope of the general
    GSI delivery path IIUC.

    I understand that there is a feedback mechanism in the ioapic model for
    calling back on acknowledgment of the interrupt. But I am not sure what
    is how the real hardware works normally, and therefore I am not
    convinced that is something we need to feed all the way back (i.e. via
    irqfd or whatever). In the interest of full disclosure, its been a few
    years since I studied the xAPIC docs, so I might be out to lunch on that
    assertion. ;)


    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-07 16:57    [W:0.026 / U:1.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site