From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI interrupts Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:42:01 +0300 Message-ID: <4FCB2359.9020505@redhat.com> References: <20120601161521.26935.25606.stgit@bling.home> <4FC8F042.5050600@siemens.com> <1338570192.23475.25.camel@bling.home> <4FC8F867.7080103@siemens.com> <1338573558.23475.41.camel@bling.home> <4FC90961.8030701@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Williamson , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "mtosatti@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "yongjie.ren@intel.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FC90961.8030701@siemens.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks, > > I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really > necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me > like have to be handled that conservatively, but maybe I'm missing some > detail. > btw, I'm hoping we can unthread assigned MSIs. If the delivery is unicast, we can precalculate everything and all the handler has to do is set the IRR, KVM_REQ_EVENT, and kick the vcpu. All of these can be done from interrupt context with just RCU locking. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function