On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 20:51 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 20:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > Yes, that would be better except that the latency may be unacceptable. > > > > > > Hmm. Good point. I keep saying kvm can have great I/O because the > scheduler is not involved in ordinary I/O. Let's not break that.
Most definitely! > >> userspace can > >> attach a signal to the eventfd if it wants a synchronous exit (does > >> eventfd allow fcntl(F_SETOWN)?) > >> > > > > Which would address the latency issue nicely. Looking at the fs code, > > it looks like eventfd shouldn't have to do anything special for it. > > > > I'm not sure now. Which thread will be selected for accepting the > signal? if it isn't guaranteed to be the current thread, we're back > with scheduler involvement, and possibly cacheline bouncing. I don't know enough about this in the kernel but I agree on principle, we need to be able to guarantee that the current thread receives the signal or we have to go back to doing an exit. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
