lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [KVM PATCH 1/2] KVM: Directly inject interrupts via irqfd
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/21/2009 05:42 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> I believe Avi, Michael, et. al. were in agreement with me on that design
>> choice. I believe the reason is that there is no good way to do EOI/ACK
>> feedback within the constraints of an eventfd pipe which would be
>> required for the legacy pin-type interrupts. Therefore, we won't even
>> bother trying. High-performance subsystems will use irqfd/msi, and
>> legacy emulation can use the existing injection code (which includes the
>> necessary feedback for ack/eoi).
>>
>>
>
> Right. But we don't actually prevent anyone using non-msi with irqfd,
> which can trigger the bad lock usage from irq context, with a nice boom
> afterwards. So we need to either prevent it during registration, or to
> gracefully handle it afterwards.
>

Yeah, I was thinking about that after I initially responded to Gleb.

I am thinking something along these lines:

Provide a function that lets you query a GSI for whether it supports
LOCKLESS or not. Then we can either do one of two things:

1) Check for the LOCKLESS attribute at irqfd registration, fail if not
present

2) Cache the LOCKLESS attribute in the irqfd structure, and either go
direct or defer to a workqueue depending on the flag.

Thoughts?
-Greg

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-22 17:17    [W:0.633 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site