From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757298Ab0KRNS5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:18:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15583 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756514Ab0KRNSy (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:18:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4CE527B7.4060006@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:18:47 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101103 Fedora/1.0-0.33.b2pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Natapov CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , Xiao Guangrong , Gregory Haskins , Chris Lalancette , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: fast-path msi injection with irqfd References: <20101117221254.GA8296@redhat.com> <20101118105741.GA31261@redhat.com> <4CE50810.3090502@redhat.com> <20101118111037.GB31261@redhat.com> <4CE51C17.4000108@redhat.com> <20101118130337.GA2254@redhat.com> <20101118131453.GO7948@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20101118131453.GO7948@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/18/2010 03:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:03:37PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >+static inline void kvm_irq_routing_update(struct kvm *kvm, > > > >+ struct kvm_irq_routing_table *irq_rt) > > > >+{ > > > >+ rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->irq_routing, irq_rt); > > > >+} > > > >+ > > > > static inline int kvm_ioeventfd(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_ioeventfd *args) > > > > { > > > > return -ENOSYS; > > > > > > Apart from these minor issues, looks good. > > > > > > Something we should consider improving is the loop over all VCPUs that > > kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic invokes. I think that (for non-broadcast > > interrupts) it should be possible to precompute an store the CPU > > in question as part of the routing entry. > > > > Something for a separate patch ... comments? > > > I do not think this info should be part of routing entry. Routing entry > is more about describing wires on the board. Other then that > this is a good idea that, IIRC, we already discussed once. > Not as part of the routing entry exposed to userspace. But as a private kernel field, why not? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function