On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 09:56:24AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Hmm, this does an extra config read on each interrupt (another one is in > > pci_2_3_irq_unmask). These reads are pretty expensive... I do realize > > locking becomes ugly, though. Maybe my idea to avoid set level to 0 > > was silly? Thoughts? > > Well, reading twice is the price to pay here, putting kvm_set_irq under > spin_lock_irq again is a no-go. From that POV, the previous version was > probably the cheapest: no extra efforts in the common case, but still > avoiding reassertion via the host IRQ handler whenever possible. > > Jan >
Sigh. I guess so. Any chance of a benchmark to let us figure this out? -- MST -- 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
