On 07/10/15 16:46, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> Sure. And you then have to parse and validate all the tables each and
>> every time you're going to inject an interrupt (because the guest can
>> change the table content behind your back). You are quickly going to
>> notice that your performance is abysmal.
>
> I don't see any real problems, at least with LPI tables. If the guest
> changes something, it will be
> immediately available to us. I don't see any need to seriously validate
> something, at least here.
> Pending bit is just pending bit, and configuration is just priority value
> plus enable bit.
> But, well, if we think a bit better, in case of pending bit modification,
> the operations on both
> guest and host side have to be atomic, otherwise we can clobber our table if,
> for example, both host
> and guest modify adjacent bits. And there's no way to interlock with the
> guest. So, OK, i accept
> your point.
The pending table is the least of our concerns. Device table, ITTs,
collections. That's the real problem.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
