From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sheng Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] x2apic implementation for kvm Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:19:15 +0800 Message-ID: <200905251719.16009.sheng@linux.intel.com> References: <1242927475-6140-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <200905251448.04183.sheng@linux.intel.com> <4A1A5FD5.5090406@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:64647 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983AbZEYJRu (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 05:17:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A1A5FD5.5090406@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 25 May 2009 17:07:33 Avi Kivity wrote: > Sheng Yang wrote: > > OK, you are totally talking about PV. For PV, I think let host kernel > > accept the modification is more important here. (And for PV, using > > hypercall seems more directly). > > Microsoft already defined their interfaces, and they use MSRs (but a > different range from x2apic). I think that means the PV interface for lapic. And yes, we can support it follow MS's interface, but x2apic still seems another story as you noted... I still don't think support x2apic here would bring us more benefits. -- regards Yang, Sheng