Hello Julien,
On 30.07.19 23:10, Julien Grall wrote:
In this series I think I need interrupts locked until I start time accounting
for hypervisor. Time accounting is started by `tacc_head()` function. I prefer
to have it called from C, because it is more convenient and obvious for those
who are less familiar with the ARM code.
Here is the question to you: what is the best place (and way) to start
hypervisor time tracking?
Resending the patch without things addressed is only going to make it worst.
I'm still convinced the patch would improve interrupt latency for high
interrupt rate use cases.
But I understand that I have no experiment to prove the effect, so I'm not
willing to push through the patch.
The only thing I ask is justification in your commit message rather than
throwing things and expecting the reviewer to understand why you do that. I
would recommend to refresh yourself how to submit a patch series [1].
I'll follow you recommendation.
Also, I have a question to you about another aspect of this patch. In the
function `enter_hypervisor_head()` there is a check for a disabled workaround
and turning it on. If we have the interrupts enabled until there, we have good
chances to go through the interrupt processing `do_IRQ()` before WA enabled. Is
it still OK?
Hmmm, that's correct.
Sorry I did not get your point. What exactly is correct? My observation of the
scenario where we can go through the big piece of the hypervisor without WA
enabled? Or processing IRQs without WA enabled is the correct way to do?
--
Sincerely,
Andrii Anisov.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
