Carsten Otte wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> What about merging kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() into _runnable()? >> >> My feeling is that we can keep it separated. >> > On s390 there is a difference between has_interrupt and not runnable: > CPUs can be in stopped state, and they can be in enabled wait (enabled > for interrupts, similar to hlt state on x86) or in disabled wait > state. All those states indicate that the CPU is not runnable. > Interrupts on the other hand are typically floating between all > virtual CPUs and can be accepted by running CPUs only (that is either > running, or in enabled wait). > > I agree that we should keep it seperated. >
On x86, running hlt with interrupts disabled is similar to your disabled wait. Interrupts in general are directed towards a specific cpu, though older processors supported round-robin or priority based dispatching. With extensive caches this is a performance loss, so the feature is not missed. Thanks for the clarification. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
