Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] kvm: Introduce basic MSI support in-kernel irqchips

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:44:41PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/28/2012 01:33 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2012-03-28 13:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 03/22/2012 01:17 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > >>
> > >> This patch basically adds kvm_irqchip_send_msi, a service for sending
> > >> arbitrary MSI messages to KVM's in-kernel irqchip models.
> > >>
> > >> As the current KVI API requires us to establish a static route from a
> > > 
> > > s/KVI/KVM/
> > > 
> > >> pseudo GSI to the target MSI message and inject the MSI via toggling
> > >> that GSI, we need to play some tricks to make this unfortunately
> > > 
> > > s/unfortunately/unfortunate/
> >
> > Will fix these.
> 
> Only needed if you end up reposting.
> 
> > > 
> > >> interface transparent. We create those routes on demand and keep them
> > >> in a hash table. Succeeding messages can then search for an existing
> > >> route in the table first and reuse it whenever possible. If we should
> > >> run out of limited GSIs, we simply flush the table and rebuild it as
> > >> messages are sent.
> > >>
> > >> This approach is rather simple and could be optimized further. However,
> > >> it is more efficient to enhance the KVM API so that we do not need this
> > >> clumsy dynamic routing over futures kernels.
> > > 
> > > Two APIs are clumsier than one.
> >
> > The current one is very clumsy for user-injected MSIs while the new one
> > won't be. It will also be very simple it implement if you recall the
> > patch. I think that is worth it.
> 
> Don't see why.  The clumsiness will be retained.  The cpu doesn't care
> how clumsy the API is, only the reader.

It does care that the performance will be bad. GSIs were
supposed by design to be static, so routing changes are slow.

> >
> > > 
> > > wet the patch itself, suggest replacing the home grown hash with
> > > http://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.30/glib-Caches.html.   
> >
> > Let's keep it simple :). We have no need for many of those features, and
> > it would not be possible to implement the logic as compact as it is
> > right now.
> 
> Due to the callbacks?
> 
> What if the code grows?
> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function