>>> On 08.09.11 at 11:10, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/09/11 09:15, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 08/09/2011 08:39, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 07.09.11 at 18:56, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 07/09/2011 17:03, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07.09.11 at 17:03, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Are you sure this is correct? I'm suspicious that this may intentionally
>>>>> have been the lowest priority vector...
>>>> I can't see why?
>>> Perhaps to get all "real" interrupts serviced first, and then do a single,
>>> consolidated run through everything that needs cleaning up? All the
>>> more since smp_irq_move_cleanup_interrupt() may re-issue the
>>> interrupt to the local CPU.
>> Ah, hm, that's a good point. We obviously livelock if we make
>> IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR higher priority than the vector that
>> smp_irq_move_cleanup_interrupt() is attempting to retry.
>>
>> Andrew: I think we have to leave this vector where it is, but you could add
>> a comment explaining why it is so, in your cleanup patchset.
>>
>> -- Keir
>
> Wow I was having a slow day - I was thinking that
> IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR was the first high priority vector.
>
> In which case it should probably stay at its current vector, but
> FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR should probably be bumped up, as it is no longer a
> vector dynamically allocated to guests.
But that's merely cosmetic then, isn't it?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home