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

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31/5/07 16:40, "Keir Fraser" <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It'd be interesting to know how these two approaches compare
> performance-wise. I suppose yours should win, really, due to fewer physical
> interrupts.

One thing is that the polarity-switching approach is a slightly better fit
with the HVM interrupt logic. Currently interrupt sources and VIOAPIC are
not tightly bound together; they only interact by one waggling the virtual
intx wires and the other sampling that wire periodically (or synchronously
on +ve edges). Your approach requires a 'back channel' from the VIOAPIC code
back to physical interrupt code to call ->end(). It's kind of ugly. On the
other hand I suspect the polarity-switching code adds more stuff to the
phsyical interrupt subsystem, and your approach can certainly be supported,
probably by adding a bit more state (maybe just a single bit) per virtual
intx wire. Really we need to look at and measure each implementation...

 -- Keir


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