From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753226AbbAMQSF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:18:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54642 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752363AbbAMQSC (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:18:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:17:16 +0100 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3I/bcOhPw==?= To: "Wu, Feng" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "gleb@kernel.org" , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "joro@8bytes.org" , "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "jiang.liu@linux.intel.com" , "eric.auger@linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [v3 13/26] KVM: Define a new interface kvm_find_dest_vcpu() for VT-d PI Message-ID: <20150113161716.GA12941@potion.brq.redhat.com> References: <1418397300-10870-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1418397300-10870-14-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <20150109145435.GA22469@potion.brq.redhat.com> <54AFEC00.80507@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2015-01-13 00:27+0000, Wu, Feng: > > On 09/01/2015 15:54, Radim Krčmář wrote: > > > There are two points relevant to this patch in new KVM's implementation, > > > ("KVM: x86: amend APIC lowest priority arbitration", > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/9/362) > > > > > > 1) lowest priority depends on TPR > > > 2) there is no need for balancing > > > > > > (1) has to be considered with PI as well. > > > > The chipset doesn't support it. :( > > > > > I kept (2) to avoid whining from people building on that behaviour, but > > > lowest priority backed by PI could be transparent without it. > > > > > > Patch below removes the balancing, but I am not sure this is a price we > > > allowed ourselves to pay ... what are your opinions? > > > > I wouldn't mind, but it requires a lot of benchmarking. > > In fact, the real hardware may do lowest priority in round robin way, Yes, but we won't emulate round robin with PI and I think it is wrong to have backends with significantly different guest-visible behaviors. > the new > hardware even doesn't consider the TPR for lowest priority interrupts delivery. A bold move ... what hardware was the first to do so? > As discussed with Paolo before, I will submit a patch to support lowest priority for PI > after this series is merged. Sure, I see only two good solutions though 1) don't optimize lowest priority with PI 2) don't balance lowest priority