On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
In order to inject a level interrupt from an external source using an
irqfd, we need to allocate a new irq_source_id. This allows us to
assert and (later) de-assert an interrupt line independently from
users of KVM_IRQ_LINE and
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:41:14PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
In order to inject a level interrupt from an external source using an
irqfd, we need to allocate a new irq_source_id. This allows us to
assert and (later)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:44:29PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:41:14PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
In order to inject a level interrupt from an external source using an
irqfd, we need to
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:48:44PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:44:29PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:41:14PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
In order to inject a
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:49:06PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:48:44PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:44:29PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:41:14PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:53:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:49:06PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:48:44PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:44:29PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:55:30PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:53:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:49:06PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:48:44PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:22:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So as was discussed kvm_set_irq under spinlock is bad for
scalability
with multiple VCPUs. Why do we need a spinlock simply to protect
level_asserted? Let's use an atomic test and set/test and clear
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:22:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So as was discussed kvm_set_irq under spinlock is bad for
scalability
with multiple VCPUs. Why do we need a spinlock simply to
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:22:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So as was discussed kvm_set_irq under spinlock is bad for
scalability
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:22:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So as was discussed
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:47:23AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 18:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:47:23AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 18:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:47:23AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though current
situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is not worse
for
scalability than calling it not under one.
Yes. Still the specific use can just use
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:42:09PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though current
situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is not
worse for
scalability than calling
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:42 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though current
situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is not
worse for
scalability than calling it not
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 13:07 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:42 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though current
situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:13:06PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 13:07 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:42 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 13:13 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 13:07 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:42 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Back to original point though current
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:28:34PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
turn on lockdep to remember why I couldn't sleep there.
switching to a mutex results in:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 30025, name:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:23:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:28:34PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
turn on lockdep to remember why I couldn't sleep there.
switching to a mutex results in:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
@@ -96,6 +183,9 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
* It is now safe to release the object's resources
*/
eventfd_ctx_put(irqfd-eventfd);
+
+ _irq_source_put(irqfd-source);
+
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 00:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
@@ -96,6 +183,9 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
* It is now safe to release the object's resources
*/
eventfd_ctx_put(irqfd-eventfd);
+
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:57:41PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 00:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
@@ -96,6 +183,9 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
* It is now safe to release the
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 01:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:57:41PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 00:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
@@ -96,6 +183,9 @@
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 04:16:04PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 01:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:57:41PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 00:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:47PM
27 matches
Mail list logo
