Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-06-04 Thread Mark McLoughlin
Hi Greg, On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 18:04 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Hi Mark, > So with the v5 release of iosignalfd, we now have the notion of a > "trigger", the API of which is as follows: > > --- > /*! > * \brief Assign an eventfd to an IO port (PIO or MMIO) > * > * As

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-06-03 Thread Gregory Haskins
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:40 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> >>> Multiple cookies on the same address are required by virtio. You can't mux since the d

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-06-01 Thread Gregory Haskins
Avi Kivity wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: >> This is closer to how the original series worked, but Avi asked for a >> data-match token and thus the cookie was born. I think the rationale is >> that we can't predict whether the same eventfd will be registered more >> than once, and thus we need a

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-31 Thread Avi Kivity
Gregory Haskins wrote: This is closer to how the original series worked, but Avi asked for a data-match token and thus the cookie was born. I think the rationale is that we can't predict whether the same eventfd will be registered more than once, and thus we need a way to further qualify it. Ho

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-28 Thread Gregory Haskins
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 16:45 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> >>> The virtio ABI is fixed, so we couldn't e.g. have the guest use a cookie >>> to identify a queue - it's just going to continue using a per-device >>> queue number. >>>

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-28 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 16:45 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > The virtio ABI is fixed, so we couldn't e.g. have the guest use a cookie > > to identify a queue - it's just going to continue using a per-device > > queue number. > > Actually, I was originally thinking this w

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Gregory Haskins
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:40 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> >>> Multiple cookies on the same address are required by virtio. You can't mux since the d

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:40 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > > >> Multiple cookies on the same address are required by virtio. You can't > >> mux since the data doesn't go anywhere. > >> > >> Virtio can surv

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Gregory Haskins
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> Multiple cookies on the same address are required by virtio. You can't >> mux since the data doesn't go anywhere. >> >> Virtio can survive by checking all rings on a notify, and we can later >> add a mechanis

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Multiple cookies on the same address are required by virtio. You can't > mux since the data doesn't go anywhere. > > Virtio can survive by checking all rings on a notify, and we can later > add a mechanism that has a distinct address for e

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Gregory Haskins
Avi Kivity wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: >> >>> What happens if you register to iosignalfds for the same address but >>> with different cookies (a very practical scenario)? >>> >> >> This is really only supported at the iosignal interface level. Today, >> you can do this and the registratio

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Avi Kivity
Gregory Haskins wrote: What happens if you register to iosignalfds for the same address but with different cookies (a very practical scenario)? This is really only supported at the iosignal interface level. Today, you can do this and the registration will succeed, but at run-time an IO-

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Gregory Haskins
Avi Kivity wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: >> iosignalfd is a mechanism to register PIO/MMIO regions to trigger an >> eventfd >> signal when written to by a guest. Host userspace can register any >> arbitrary >> IO address with a corresponding eventfd and then pass the eventfd to a >> specific end

Re: [KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-27 Thread Avi Kivity
Gregory Haskins wrote: iosignalfd is a mechanism to register PIO/MMIO regions to trigger an eventfd signal when written to by a guest. Host userspace can register any arbitrary IO address with a corresponding eventfd and then pass the eventfd to a specific end-point of interest for handling. No

[KVM PATCH v4 3/3] kvm: add iosignalfd support

2009-05-26 Thread Gregory Haskins
iosignalfd is a mechanism to register PIO/MMIO regions to trigger an eventfd signal when written to by a guest. Host userspace can register any arbitrary IO address with a corresponding eventfd and then pass the eventfd to a specific end-point of interest for handling. Normal IO requires a blocki