Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device assignment using vt-d

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Guy Zana" <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device assignment using vt-d
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:51:27 +0800
Delivery-date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:49:43 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C284AAE4.FCB7%keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acei7YJ0pr6pL1ntT2Wzdmq3YT+WeAABwdLMABRnVWAADaM8MAADBqQEAAAbqrAAAuWvEQAADOZgAABXPZsAAAfH8AAA3FxvAAAN5JA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device assignment using vt-d
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2007年5月31日 23:40
>
>On 31/5/07 16:30, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> OK, my rough thought is as below:
>>
>> The reason to change polarity, IMO, is to capture the de-assert
>> edge in the physical wire and then reflect de-assertion into the virtual
>> wire. Then allow the statistics on gsi_assert_count to be updated
>> correctly, when shared with virtual devices in Qemu.
>>
>> My proposal is to take virtual EOI as the de-assertion hint, without
>> any change on physical RTE property like polarity. For example, the
>> flow could be following by keeping a saying hw_assert_status array for
>> all virtual GSIs: (take vioapic for example)
>
>Ah, okay, so no polarity switching at all. Basically use VIOAPIC EOI as a
>hint to tentatively drop the virtual wire to LOW, and only then ->end the
>physical interrupt. I guess this is pretty much what you already
>implement
>in your VT-d patches?
>
>It'd be interesting to know how these two approaches compare
>performance-wise. I suppose yours should win, really, due to fewer
>physical
>interrupts.
>
>If this is how your current VT-d patches handle interrupts then I don't see
>why ioapic_ack=new is not working for you. That's a bit weird. I guess I
>could read the patches some more. ;-)
>
> -- Keir


Oh, I'm not the author of VT-d patches which is the credit of Allen and
Xiaohui. :-) I just had the concrete thought along with the discussion 
with you, and will talk to them for confirmation tomorrow. I guess 
"ioapic_ack=new" should be just some manual bug since one NIC 
assignment shouldn't result shared interrupt case yet.

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>