Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 6:47:46 PM, you wrote:
Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 6:30 PM >>>
>>Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 5:22:16 PM, you wrote:
>> Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 5:01 PM >>>
I haven't checked the call chain of xen_pcibk_do_op .. but that could be a
side effect of l
>>> Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 6:30 PM >>>
>Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 5:22:16 PM, you wrote:
> Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 5:01 PM >>>
>>>I haven't checked the call chain of xen_pcibk_do_op .. but that could be a
>>>side effect of libxl not imitating pci-front good enough (since HVM guests
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 5:22:16 PM, you wrote:
Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 5:01 PM >>>
>>Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 2:26:43 PM, you wrote:
> On 10.02.15 at 14:07, wrote:
>>> I don't really know how this code is supposed to work (we don't use
>>> it in our kernels), but it seems th
>>> Sander Eikelenboom 02/10/15 5:01 PM >>>
>Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 2:26:43 PM, you wrote:
On 10.02.15 at 14:07, wrote:
>> I don't really know how this code is supposed to work (we don't use
>> it in our kernels), but it seems the more interesting question is what
>> happens when xen_pc
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:35:47PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 2:26:43 PM, you wrote:
>
> On 10.02.15 at 14:07, wrote:
> >> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
> >> On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
> > I would have thought that xen-p
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 2:26:43 PM, you wrote:
On 10.02.15 at 14:07, wrote:
>> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
>> On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
> I would have thought that xen-pciback would install an interrupt
> handler here too when a device using IRQ 1
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:07:05PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
>
> On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
> >>> Coming back to the /proc/interrupts output you posted earlier:
> >>
> >>> /proc/interrupts shows the high count:
> >>
> >>>
>>> On 10.02.15 at 14:07, wrote:
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
> On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
I would have thought that xen-pciback would install an interrupt
handler here too when a device using IRQ 18 gets handed to a
guest. May there be something brok
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
>>> Coming back to the /proc/interrupts output you posted earlier:
>>
>>> /proc/interrupts shows the high count:
>>
>>>CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
>>> 8: 0 0
>>> On 10.02.15 at 11:59, wrote:
> I presume the irq handler pciback registers will not claim the line
> level interrupts, as it cant know for certain whether the interrupt was
> for the passed-through device. This in turn will (presumably) cause the
> dom0 kernel to declare that nobody cared.
T
On 10/02/15 10:47, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 11:36:48 AM, you wrote:
>
> On 10.02.15 at 11:03, wrote:
>>> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
I suppose that's because there's no handler installed by pciback, yet
IRQs generated by the pass
>>> On 10.02.15 at 11:47, wrote:
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 11:36:48 AM, you wrote:
>> No - such a shared IRQ gets sent to both domains. There's no notion
>> of one domain claiming it and the other then not seeing it, as any
>> instance of the interrupt may mean more than one of the devices
>>
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 11:36:48 AM, you wrote:
On 10.02.15 at 11:03, wrote:
>> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
>>> I suppose that's because there's no handler installed by pciback, yet
>>> IRQs generated by the passed through device also arrive in Dom0,
>>> and the
>>> On 10.02.15 at 11:03, wrote:
> Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
>> I suppose that's because there's no handler installed by pciback, yet
>> IRQs generated by the passed through device also arrive in Dom0,
>> and the driver for the device left in Dom0 doesn't claim the interr
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 10:35:36 AM, you wrote:
On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
>>> Coming back to the /proc/interrupts output you posted earlier:
>>
>>> /proc/interrupts shows the high count:
>>
>>>CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
>>> 8: 0 0
>>> On 10.02.15 at 10:19, wrote:
>> Coming back to the /proc/interrupts output you posted earlier:
>
>> /proc/interrupts shows the high count:
>
>>CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
>> 8: 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-ioapic-edge rtc0
>> 9: 1
Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 9:48:09 AM, you wrote:
On 09.02.15 at 18:13, wrote:
>> Yes the device that tries to handle the interrupt seems to change ..
>> however that device is always not actively used.
>> This time it was an unused IDE controller with driver loaded in dom0
>> and a mini-
>>> On 09.02.15 at 18:13, wrote:
> Yes the device that tries to handle the interrupt seems to change ..
> however that device is always not actively used.
> This time it was an unused IDE controller with driver loaded in dom0
> and a mini-pcie wifi card passed through to a guest.
>
> But i did a
Monday, February 9, 2015, 5:36:28 PM, you wrote:
On 09.02.15 at 16:18, wrote:
>> On 09/02/15 15:03, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Hi Jan / David / Konrad,
>>>
>>> I was just testing a 3.19 kernel on my intel machine and again
>>> ran into the sporadically appearing "irq nobody cared" on th
>>> On 09.02.15 at 16:18, wrote:
> On 09/02/15 15:03, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Hi Jan / David / Konrad,
>>
>> I was just testing a 3.19 kernel on my intel machine and again
>> ran into the sporadically appearing "irq nobody cared" on the dom0 kernel.
>> This occurs now for quite some kernel v
Monday, February 9, 2015, 4:18:15 PM, you wrote:
> On 09/02/15 15:03, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Hi Jan / David / Konrad,
>>
>> I was just testing a 3.19 kernel on my intel machine and again
>> ran into the sporadically appearing "irq nobody cared" on the dom0 kernel.
>> This occurs now for qu
On 09/02/15 15:03, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Hi Jan / David / Konrad,
>
> I was just testing a 3.19 kernel on my intel machine and again
> ran into the sporadically appearing "irq nobody cared" on the dom0 kernel.
> This occurs now for quite some kernel versions (running xen-unstable now,
> but
Hi Jan / David / Konrad,
I was just testing a 3.19 kernel on my intel machine and again
ran into the sporadically appearing "irq nobody cared" on the dom0 kernel.
This occurs now for quite some kernel versions (running xen-unstable now,
but it also appeared in the past with builds that are now xen
23 matches
Mail list logo
