On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:55:12PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2015 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI + the threaded handler
> > added in this series. These run independently, the PI bypass simply
> > makes the interrupt disappear
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 18:56 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
> > patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
> > multiple
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:55:12PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2015 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI + the threaded handler
> > added in this series. These run independently, the PI bypass simply
> > makes the interrupt disappear
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 18:56 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
> > patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
> > multiple
On 16/12/2015 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI + the threaded handler
> added in this series. These run independently, the PI bypass simply
> makes the interrupt disappear from the host when it catches it, but if
> the vCPU isn't running in the
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 18:56 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Alex,
>
> can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
> patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
> multiple consumers for the same token.
The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI +
Alex,
can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
multiple consumers for the same token.
Paolo
On 03/12/2015 19:22, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency
Alex,
can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
multiple consumers for the same token.
Paolo
On 03/12/2015 19:22, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 18:56 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Alex,
>
> can you take a look at the extension to the irq bypass interface in
> patch 2? I'm not sure I understand what is the case where you have
> multiple consumers for the same token.
The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI +
On 16/12/2015 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The consumers would be, for instance, Intel PI + the threaded handler
> added in this series. These run independently, the PI bypass simply
> makes the interrupt disappear from the host when it catches it, but if
> the vCPU isn't running in the
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:55:53AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 10:22 -0800, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> > When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement,
> > it
> > is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
> > the
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 10:22 -0800, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement, it
> is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
> the context switch to/from the IRQ thread.
>
> Based on discussion on
When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement, it
is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
the context switch to/from the IRQ thread.
Based on discussion on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/26/764, the VFIO msi
interrupt is changed to
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:55:53AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 10:22 -0800, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> > When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement,
> > it
> > is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
> > the
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 10:22 -0800, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement, it
> is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
> the context switch to/from the IRQ thread.
>
> Based on discussion on
When assigning a VFIO device to a KVM guest with low latency requirement, it
is better to handle the interrupt in the hard interrupt context, to reduce
the context switch to/from the IRQ thread.
Based on discussion on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/26/764, the VFIO msi
interrupt is changed to
16 matches
Mail list logo
