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] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:30:40 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:31:26 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <492BC215.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AclO2Bk7V8jwjrrLEd2bbAAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
On 25/11/08 08:15, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> The fixmap stuff is a bit ugly and I would just have done a
>> map_domain_page_global() for 32-bit Xen (good enough as far as I'm
>> concerned). I'm not dead set against your approach if you like it very much,
>> though.
> 
> But just as map_domain_page(), map_domain_page_global() can't be used
> out of IRQ context...

I would have kept the page mapped from when it was registered until domain
death. Same as we do for guest-registered vcpu_info.

>> Setting the need-a-hypercall bit looks racey. Don't you need to set the bit,
>> then check the guest didn't unmask meanwhile?
> 
> We could, but I don't think it's strictly needed: The bit geting temporarily
> set (as opposed to the case where it's being set for the lifetime of the IRQ)
> is a performance optimization only anyway, i.e. to prevent the IRQ from
> remaining masked for longer than it really needs to be. But yes, I'll see
> whether the unmasking case can be taken care of without making the code
> much more complicated.

Yeah, okay.

 -- Keir



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