On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote on 2013-02-25:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:42:52AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
> >> Avi Kivity wrote on 2013-02-25:
> >>> I didn't really follow, but is the root cause the need to keep track
> >>> of interrupt coalescing? If so we can recommend that users use
> >>> KVM_IRQ_LINE when coalescing is unneeded, and move interrupt injection
> >>> with irq coalescing support to vcpu context.
> >> So we can hide the capability KVM_CAP_IRQ_INJECT_STATUS when posted
> > interrupt is enabled to force users doesn't to use KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS. Does
> > this acceptable?
> >>
> >> The only case in KVM that need to know the interrupt injection status is
> >> vlapic
> > timer. But since vlapic timer and vcpu are always in same pcpu, so there is
> > no
> > problem.
> >>
> > Not really. The primary user of this interface is RTC interrupt
> > re-injection for Windows guests.
> So without KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS capability, RTC cannot work well?
>
Windows guests may experience timedrift under CPU overcommit scenario.
--
Gleb.
--
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
