> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Yang Zhang
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 10:06 AM
> To: Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com>; pbonz...@redhat.com;
> rkrc...@redhat.com
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
> priority interrupts
> 
> On 2015/12/21 9:50, Wu, Feng wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yang Zhang [mailto:yang.zhang...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:46 AM
> >> To: Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com>; pbonz...@redhat.com;
> >> rkrc...@redhat.com
> >> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
> >> priority interrupts
> >>
> >> On 2015/12/16 9:37, Feng Wu wrote:
> >>> Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
> >>> example, modern Intel CPUs in server platform use this method to
> >>> handle lowest-priority interrupts.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    arch/x86/kvm/irq_comm.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>>    arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c    | 57
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>    arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h    |  2 ++
> >>>    arch/x86/kvm/x86.c      |  9 ++++++++
> >>>    arch/x86/kvm/x86.h      |  1 +
> >>>    5 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>    bool kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic
> *src,
> >>>                   struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq, int *r, unsigned long 
> >>> *dest_map)
> >>>    {
> >>> @@ -731,17 +747,38 @@ bool kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast(struct kvm
> >> *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> >>>                   dst = map->logical_map[cid];
> >>>
> >>>                   if (kvm_lowest_prio_delivery(irq)) {
> >>> -                 int l = -1;
> >>> -                 for_each_set_bit(i, &bitmap, 16) {
> >>> -                         if (!dst[i])
> >>> -                                 continue;
> >>> -                         if (l < 0)
> >>> -                                 l = i;
> >>> -                         else if (kvm_apic_compare_prio(dst[i]->vcpu,
> >> dst[l]->vcpu) < 0)
> >>> -                                 l = i;
> >>> +                 if (!kvm_vector_hashing_enabled()) {
> >>> +                         int l = -1;
> >>> +                         for_each_set_bit(i, &bitmap, 16) {
> >>> +                                 if (!dst[i])
> >>> +                                         continue;
> >>> +                                 if (l < 0)
> >>> +                                         l = i;
> >>> +                                 else if (kvm_apic_compare_prio(dst[i]-
> >>> vcpu, dst[l]->vcpu) < 0)
> >>> +                                         l = i;
> >>> +                         }
> >>> +                         bitmap = (l >= 0) ? 1 << l : 0;
> >>> +                 } else {
> >>> +                         int idx = 0;
> >>> +                         unsigned int dest_vcpus = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +                         for_each_set_bit(i, &bitmap, 16) {
> >>> +                                 if (!dst[i]
> >> && !kvm_lapic_enabled(dst[i]->vcpu)) {
> >>
> >> It should be or(||) not and (&&).
> >
> > Oh, you are right! My negligence! Thanks for pointing this out, Yang!
> 
> btw, i think the kvm_lapic_enabled check is wrong here? Why need it here?

If the lapic is not enabled, I think we cannot recognize it as a candidate, can 
we?
Maybe Radim can confirm this, Radim, what is your option?

Thanks,
Feng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to