Gleb Natapov wrote on 2013-02-25: > 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. Ok, I see. Seems we are stuck. :( Do you have any suggestion to solve or workaround current problem?
Best regards, Yang -- 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
