Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> >>> This pushes towards in kernel apic too. Can't see how we avoid it. >>> >> >> Does it really? IIUC, we would avoid TPR traps entirely and would >> just need to synchronize the TPR whenever we go down to userspace. >> > > It's a bit more complex than that, as userspace would need to tell the > kernel the highest priority pending interrupt so that it can program > the hardware to exit when an interrupt is ready. However I agree > with you that in principle we could split the apic emulation between > kvm and qemu, even with this featurette.
Most of H/W-virtualization capable processors out there don't support that feature today. I think the decision (kvm or qemu) should be done based on performance data. I'm not worried about maintenance issues; the APIC code is not expected to change frequently. I'm a bit worried about extra complexity caused by such split, though. BTW, I see CPU utilization of qemu is almost always 99% in the top command when I run kernel build in an x86-64 Linux guest. Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
