Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On 10/15/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If we want to make the clocksource useful for Windows we need to go >> through the apic as that will allow the TPR to mask the interrupt when >> Windows isn't ready to receive it. However I don't know whether it is >> possible to integrate a paravirt clocksource into Windows. >> > > My politically-correct side told me to say that the solution that > works also in Windows is the best one ;-) > >
In this case, I'm not at all sure Windows can benefit from a paravirt timesource, so it might be better to concentrate on Linux. I'll ask the Windows people here. >> For Linux, we might as well go further and provide a completely >> paravirtualized irqchip instead of trying to integrate a paravirtualized >> clocksource into a fullyvirtualized irqchip. >> >> > > Yes, definitely. In your opinion, what's the size of the gap between > the "we can", and the "we should" here? > At present the APIC requires an exit for each level-triggered interrupt. We could reduce the number of exits to zero given sufficient cleverness. This would be beneficial to non-streaming I/O workloads. So yes, I think it's worthwhile. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
