From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= Subject: Re: [Patch v5] x86: irq_comm: Add check for RH bit in kvm_set_msi_irq Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:15:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20150320151534.GB14772@potion.brq.redhat.com> References: <5502FEDB.3030606@gmail.com> <20150318225225.GA8702@amt.cnet> <550A1F6A.6030602@gmail.com> <20150319010932.GA18338@amt.cnet> <20150319130015.GA16070@potion.brq.redhat.com> <550B5309.1090805@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org, gleb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com To: James Sullivan Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50757 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751266AbbCTPPi (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:15:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <550B5309.1090805@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2015-03-19 16:51-0600, James Sullivan: > I played around with native_compose_msi_msg and discovered the following: > > * dm=0, rh=0 => Physical Destination Mode > * dm=0, rh=1 => Failed delivery > * dm=1, rh=0 => Logical Destination Mode, No Redirection > * dm=1, rh=1 => Logical Destination Mode, Redirection Great! (What CPU family was that?) > So it seems to be the case that logical destination mode is used whenever > DM=1, regardless of RH. Furthermore, the case where DM=0 and RH=1 is > undefined, as was indicated in the closing response to the thread in > https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/288883 : DM=0+RH=1 might be defined to "fail", but I think it's acceptable to treat it as undefined. (Deliver them in KVM if it improves something.) I'm still wondering about last sentence from that link, the parenthesised part to be exact, The reference to the APIC ID being 0xff is because 0xff is broadcast and lowest priority (what the RH bit really is for X86) is illegal with broadcast. Can you also check if RH=1 does something to delivery mode? Thanks.