On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:13:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 05:51:50PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > But current PI patches do break them, thats my point. So we either > > > > > need to revise them again, or drop LAPIC timer reinjection. Making > > > > > apic_accept_irq semantics "it returns coalescing info, but only > > > > > sometimes" > > > > > is dubious though. > > > > We may rollback to the initial idea: test both irr and pir to get > > > > coalescing info. In this case, inject LAPIC timer always in vcpu > > > > context. So apic_accept_irq() will return right coalescing info. > > > > Also, we need to add comments to tell caller, apic_accept_irq() can > > > > ensure the return value is correct only when caller is in target vcpu > > > > context. > > > > > > > We cannot touch irr while vcpu is in non-root operation, so we will have > > > to pass flag to apic_accept_irq() to let it know that it is called > > > synchronously. While all this is possible I want to know which guests > > > exactly will we break if we will not track interrupt coalescing for > > > lapic timer. If only 2.0 smp kernels will break we can probably drop it. > > > > RHEL4 / RHEL5 guests. > RHEL5 has kvmclock no? We should not break RHEL4 though.
kvmclock provides no timer interrupt... either LAPIC or PIT must be used with kvmclock. -- 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
