|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV drive
You have to be careful here. Xen will only ever deliver the evtchn interrupt to
VCPU0. I can't immediately see anything preventing an HVM domain trying to bind
and evtchn to another VCPU but you can see from the code in
hvm_assert_evtchn_irq() that the guest will only be kicked for events bound to
VCPU0 (is_hvm_pv_evtchn_vcpu() will only be true for Linux PVonHVM domains).
Thus if you bind your DPC to a CPU other than zero and don't set it to
HighImportance then it will not be immediately scheduled since default DPC
importance is MediumImportance.
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Harper
> Sent: 10 March 2011 06:27
> To: MaoXiaoyun
> Cc: xen devel
> Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL
> PV driver
>
> >
> > It looks like KeSetTargetProcessorDpc(&xi->rx_dpc, 0) set the
> rx_dpc
> in VCPU0
> > only,
> > and in fact interrput for xennet are distributed across all VCPUS.
> >
> > By using IntFiltr from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/252867
> > to set interrupt affinity to VCPU0 only, without
> KeSetTargetProcessorDpc
> > commentted, we get quite stable ping time too., which is less than
> 1ms
> >
> > So I think this is the problem.
> > KeSetTargetProcessorDpc should be discard.
> >
>
> Ah. So when the cpu for the irq is different to the cpu for the dpc,
> you get the extra delay. That makes sense. It would also explain why
> XP didn't seem to see the same problem as I think the IRQ is
> directed to
> CPU0 there... I've been looking for the docs on what's different and
> can't find anything.
>
> If you can confirm that you have no problems with removing
> KeSetTargetProcessorDpc I'll remove it, at least for >W2003 builds
> until I find the docs about what NDIS expects to do on what CPU.
>
> James
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Xen-devel] Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, MaoXiaoyun
- Re: [Xen-devel] Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, John Weekes
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, MaoXiaoyun
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, James Harper
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, MaoXiaoyun
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, MaoXiaoyun
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, MaoXiaoyun
- [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver, James Harper
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PV driver,
Paul Durrant <=
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, James Harper
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, Paul Durrant
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, James Harper
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, Paul Durrant
- Re: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, Paul Durrant
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Ping in Windows with GPLPVdriver, James Harper
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Ping in Windows with GPLPVdriver, Paul Durrant
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, MaoXiaoyun
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Rather slow time of Pin in Windows with GPL PVdriver, James Harper
|
|
|
|
|