| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Event channel vs current scheme speed [wasvIOSAPIC
|
To: |
"Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Event channel vs current scheme speed [wasvIOSAPIC and IRQs delivery] |
|
From: |
Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:28:55 +0100 |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:26:08 +0000 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<26F44F810A51DF42A127BC2A06BE185E03D6513E@pdsmsx404> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<26F44F810A51DF42A127BC2A06BE185E03D6513E@pdsmsx404> |
|
Sender: |
xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5 |
Le Vendredi 10 Mars 2006 16:01, Dong, Eddie a écrit :
> > I agree the current model has implicit priorities.
> >
> > But I am a little bit skeptical how the priority argument. As far as
> > I understand, in Xen or in Linux first asked is first priority.
Sorry, I was not clear enough. I agree event channel can mostly respect
priority.
Except clock and IPI, I think Linux doesn't use priority. I can't force a
card to have an higher priority than another card.
Is it right ?
[...]
> These are all corner cases that we must consider as product, but at
> early development we can take shortcut like using pseudo IRQ for event
> channel here to let the whole project go ahead. And this is what we
> talked at xensummit, people (Dan, Ian, Keir, Jun) all have no object for
> potential issue concerns (for example mask/unmask support and priority
> issue) and agree to take next. PPC guy also uses pseudo physical IRQ for
> event channel as I remembered. Their community is much smaller than us
> now and their development is also lagger than IA64.
> This is why we need to clean up now as callback based event channel
> approach has already been in production stage. Making a new mechanism
> has high risk.
You know we don't agree on these points. Writing them again won't make me
change.
Tristan.
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home