From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] KVM: optimize apic interrupt delivery Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:56:55 +0300 Message-ID: <20120916105655.GA25288@redhat.com> References: <20120913090059.GZ20907@redhat.com> <5051B598.4000708@siemens.com> <20120913103311.GA2924@redhat.com> <5051B72E.8040105@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gleb Natapov , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "avi@redhat.com" , "mtosatti@redhat.com" To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31641 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022Ab2IPKzX (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:55:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5051B72E.8040105@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:36:30PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-09-13 12:33, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >> So, this can be the foundation for direct MSI delivery as well, right? > >> > > What do you mean by "direct MSI delivery"? kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic() is > > called by MSI. If you mean delivery from irq context, then yes, mst > > plans to do so. > > Yes, that's what I was aiming at. > > Jan Avi, I've been debating with self whether it's still worth it to bounce interrupts that don't get optimized such as broadcasts, out to thread? Maybe we can just do direct delivery unconditionally? Guests don't seem to use broadcasts at all widely ... > -- > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE > Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux