WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patch: implementing least priority interrupt routing

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Patch: implementing least priority interrupt routing
From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:17 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:37:40 -0800
Domainkey-signature: s=s768; d=fujitsu-siemens.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-SBRSScore:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-IronPort-AV: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=E+WQ/keJbfFu8mbFh3dD0u4nNSu5b1a30Gv0lPlr1PHR+iminBjWtk7D MHwaRrhTrempJhdmKo0rbwZW9oLapJ3JGWJRHmnyq69uCZQIjQFFKMpTs 09JzqcSNDAepxQU;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C54846EA.1F52A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Fujitsu Siemens Computers
References: <C54846EA.1F52A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018)
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 18/11/08 10:10, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Where idle means 'not processing an interrupt'. Which ought to be by far the
>> most common case even for a non-idle CPU. Does this really improve load
>> balancing all that much? Does BS2000 spend lots of time in IRQ context?
>>
>> My fear is that extra complexity here slows down dest_lowprio for all OSes
>> (and it's used by a lot of OSes) for every ExtInt delivered.
> 
> That fear is probably unfounded actually, given we scan a vcpu's IRR bitmap
> on *every* vmentry currently. Still it would be nice to know the motivation
> behind this patch (beyond 'it's nice to behave like native hardware'). We
> might still find a cheaper method with similar or better benefit (e.g.,
> check vcpu_runnable() to find idle VCPUs is cheaper and may be more
> accurate).

We are using the lower 4 bits of the task priority register in the LAPIC to
control the interrupt routing. So "idle" really means idle.
We have other priorities as well. In our system we support /390 user
applications via a JIT-compiler which has to ensure /390 instruction
semantics even in case of interrupts (this means interrupts have to be
delayed until a /390 instruction boundary has been reached). This results
in a rather high interrupt latency when a /390 application is just running
on the processor. If however the processor is just executing BS2000 system
code this restriction no longer applies. So we are using a higher task
priority when executing /390 code resulting in less interruptions and thus
better performance.
I hope things are clearer now.

Juergen

-- 
Juergen Gross                             Principal Developer
IP SW OS6                      Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950
Fujitsu Siemens Computers         e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6                Internet: www.fujitsu-siemens.com
D-81739 Muenchen         Company details: www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>