From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] create a single workqueue for each vm to
 update vm irq routing table
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:08:27 +0200
Message-ID: <20131126160827.GB23007@redhat.com>
References: <5294A68F.6060301@redhat.com>
 <CAF950W+-UiX6xv4vYmnxji9aWDU8ds2rnx7JugnbHQWJdCCD-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5294B461.5000405@redhat.com>
 <5294B634.4050801@cloudius-systems.com>
 <20131126150357.GA20352@redhat.com>
 <5294BC3B.6070902@redhat.com>
 <5294BD61.7080904@cloudius-systems.com>
 <5294BE22.7040105@redhat.com>
 <5294BFB7.2090202@cloudius-systems.com>
 <5294C53D.8060009@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@cloudius-systems.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>,
	"Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@huawei.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Jinxin (F)" <jinxin712@huawei.com>,
	"Zhanghaoyu (A)" <haoyu.zhang@huawei.com>,
	Luonengjun <luonengjun@huawei.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Zanghongyong <zanghongyong@huawei.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57457 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757183Ab3KZQ30 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:29:26 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5294C53D.8060009@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:58:53PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/11/2013 16:35, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
> >>>> If we want to ensure, we need to use a different mechanism for
> >>>> synchronization than the global RCU.  QRCU would work; readers are not
> >>>> wait-free but only if there is a concurrent synchronize_qrcu, which
> >>>> should be rare.
> >>> An alternative path is to convince ourselves that the hardware does not
> >>> provide the guarantees that the current code provides, and so we can
> >>> relax them.
> >> No, I think it's a reasonable guarantee to provide.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Because IIUC the semantics may depend not just on the interrupt
> controller, but also on the specific PCI device.  It seems safer to
> assume that at least one device/driver pair wants this to work.
> 
> (BTW, PCI memory writes are posted, but configuration writes are not).
> 
> Paolo

You can also do a PCI read and flush out the writes.