From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] provide in-kernel ioapic
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:49:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD34212.9060805@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1254953315-5761-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4ACDEDEC.60706@us.ibm.com> <4ACDEF03.6010406@redhat.com> <20091008160726.GD29691@shareable.org> <4ACE10B5.3080509@redhat.com> <20091008162248.GK16702@redhat.com> <20091009143225.GV8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <20091009164955.GC7393@shareable.org> <m31vlctk9q.fsf@neno.mitica> <4AD32D22.5090001@us.ibm.com> <20091012141825.GC13560@shareable.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@trasno.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:44989 "EHLO
	fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932368AbZJLOvu (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:51:50 -0400
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so471801fga.1
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20091012141825.GC13560@shareable.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> We already have the single device model implementation and the 
>> limitations are well known.  The best way to move forward is for someone 
>> to send out patches implementing separate device models.
>>
>> At that point, it becomes a discussion of two concrete pieces of code 
>> verses hand waving.
>>     
>
> Out of curiosity now, what _are_ the behavioural differences between
> the in-kernel irqchip and the qemu one?
>
> Are the differences significant to guests, such that it might be
> necessary to disable the in-kernel irqchip for some guests, or
> conversely, necessary to use KVM for some guests?
>   

No, the behavior differences are not terribly significant for the apic.  
Disabling it is really most useful for debugging purposes.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori