> -Original Message-
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:15 AM
> To: Radim Krcmár
> Cc: Wu, Feng ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hash
On 25/01/2016 16:20, Radim Krcmár wrote:
> 2016-01-25 13:25+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 22/01/2016 15:01, Radim Krcmár wrote:
for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx + 1);
BUG_ON(idx == bitmap_size);
2016-01-25 13:25+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 22/01/2016 15:01, Radim Krcmár wrote:
>>> for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
>>> idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx + 1);
>>> BUG_ON(idx == bitmap_size);
>>> }
>
> WARN_ON, not BUG_ON.
Callers don't che
On 22/01/2016 15:01, Radim Krcmár wrote:
>> for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
>> idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx + 1);
>> BUG_ON(idx == bitmap_size);
>> }
WARN_ON, not BUG_ON.
Paolo
2016-01-22 05:12+, Wu, Feng:
>> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrc...@redhat.com]
>> 2016-01-20 09:42+0800, Feng Wu:
>> > +{
>> > + u32 mod;
>> > + int i, idx = 0;
>> > +
>> > + mod = vector % dest_vcpus;
>> > +
>> > + for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
>> > + idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bi
2016-01-22 12:00+0800, Yang Zhang:
> On 2016/1/22 1:21, rkrc...@redhat.com wrote:
>>(I think there isn't a practical difference between *r=-1 and *r=0.)
>
> Currently, if *r == -1, the remote_irr may get set. But it seems wrong. I
Yeah ...
> need to have a double check to see whether it is a bug
> -Original Message-
> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrc...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 3:50 AM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: pbonz...@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hash
On 2016/1/22 1:21, rkrc...@redhat.com wrote:
2016-01-21 05:33+, Wu, Feng:
From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Yang Zhang
On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
+ /*
+* We may find a hardw
> -Original Message-
> From: rkrc...@redhat.com [mailto:rkrc...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:21 AM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Yang Zhang ; pbonz...@redhat.com; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86:
2016-01-20 09:42+0800, Feng Wu:
> Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
> example, modern Intel CPUs in server platform use this method to
> handle lowest-priority interrupts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
> ---
Functionality looks good, so I had a lot of stylistic comment
2016-01-21 05:33+, Wu, Feng:
>> From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
>> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Yang Zhang
>> On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
>> > + /*
>> > + * We may find a hardware disabled LAPIC here, if
>> that
>> >
] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
priority interrupts
I remember we have discussed that even the LAPIC is software disabled,
it still can respond to some interrupts like INIT, NMI, SMI, and SIPI
messages. Isn't current logic still problematically?
I don't think there ar
> -Original Message-
> From: Yang Zhang [mailto:yang.zhang...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:58 PM
> To: Wu, Feng ; pbonz...@redhat.com;
> rkrc...@redhat.com
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4]
; pbonz...@redhat.com;
rkrc...@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver
lowest-
priority interrupts
On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
f Of Yang Zhang
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:24 PM
> >> To: Wu, Feng ; pbonz...@redhat.com;
> >> rkrc...@redhat.com
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to
@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
priority interrupts
On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
example, modern Intel CPUs in server platform use this method to
handle
el@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
> priority interrupts
>
> On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
> > Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
> > example, modern Intel CPUs in server
On 2016/1/20 9:42, Feng Wu wrote:
Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
example, modern Intel CPUs in server platform use this method to
handle lowest-priority interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Feng Wu
---
v3:
- Fix a bug for sparse topologies, in that case, vcpu_id is not eq
18 matches
Mail list logo
