Re: [regression] KVM: hangs and "irq timeout" booting HURD unless -no-kvm-irqchip passed

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >I don't think the isr_ack logic is overly complex that it should be
> >removed. For some cases it is still beneficial, see example case on
> >commit e48258009d941, which is not handled by kick coalescing of
> >kvm_vcpu_kick.
> 
> On the other hand, I think it can be done differently.  For example
> LVT0 is probably programmed to mask interrupts; we can simply look
> at it and not kick if that's the case.  We can use notifiers from
> the lapic to the pic to avoid looking at lapic data.
> 
I believe this is what my patch is doing. Look at pic_unlock(). The code
search for vcpu to kick by calling kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr() function
(which checks that LVT is masked). If no vcpu is found we kicks bsp.
Why? I removed that.

> The advantage in this way is that we avoid introducing state,
> instead relying on existing state.  New state is always bad since it
> has to be kept in sync with guest visible state.
> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
			Gleb.