Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/05/2010 10:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> Assumes that CPU with >>> lowest index is BSP (that one we can actually guaranty if we want >>> to). >>> >> Well, the generic solution would be returning a bitmap of the CPUs that >> were affected, but this is impractical. However, at least x86 should be >> fine with the information "state change also on BSP", e.g. like this: >> 0 - state change on one or more CPUs, none of them is the BSP >> 1 - state change on BSP (and possible more CPUs) >> > > What about ack notifiers? Ask the APIC to notify you when an interrupt > is acked. That allows you to track the BSP, all cpus, or some subset. > Masking can be seen at the irq controller level.
So, if I understand you correctly, an IRQ state change that is ignored due to masking would invoke the ack notifier chain as well? > > It's more involved, but provides more information. Well, it requires to establish ack notifier chains in parallel to the existing IRQ delivery routes. Definitely more invasive. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
