On 01/19/2010 09:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> Yes it can be done this way and I'll look into it once more. Using
> exception vector is more convenient for three reasons: it allows to pass
> additional data in error code, it doesn't require guest to issue EOI,
> exception can be injected when interrupts are disabled by a guest. The
> last one is not important for now since host doesn't inject notifications
> when interrupts are disabled currently. Having Intel allocate one
> exception vector for hypervisor use would be really nice though.
>
That's probably not going to happen, for the rather obvious reason: *you
already have 224 of them*.
You seem to be thinking here that vectors 0-31 have to be exceptions and
32-255 have to be interrupts. *There is no such distinction*; the only
thing special about 0-31 is that we (Intel) reserve the right to control
the assignments; for 32-255 the platform and OS control the assignment.
You can have the guest OS take an exception on a vector above 31 just
fine; you just need it to tell the hypervisor which vector it, the OS,
assigned for this purpose.
-hpa
--
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
