From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@cloudius-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] create a single workqueue for each vm to update
 vm irq routing table
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <5294CC5D.7010706@cloudius-systems.com>
References: <D3E216785288A145B7BC975F83A2ED10448ADCCB@SZXEMA510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <52949847.6020908@redhat.com> <CAEbWaipAnmoa=gMbB1aNb=btU6LgYXhcnmQWHJ_89m4yvw6Dug@mail.gmail.com> <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> <20131126162414.GC20352@redhat.com> <5294CC27.4090202@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>,
	"Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@huawei.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"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>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:54343 "EHLO
	mail-bk0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757183Ab3KZQ3W (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:29:22 -0500
Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d7so2726584bkh.31
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:29:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5294CC27.4090202@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/26/2013 06:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/11/2013 17:24, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>>      VCPU writes to routing table
>>>                                         e = entry from IRQ routing table
>>>      kvm_irq_routing_update(kvm, new);
>>>      VCPU resumes execution
>>>                                         kvm_set_msi_irq(e, &irq);
>>>                                         kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast();
>>>
>>> where the entry is stale but the VCPU has already resumed execution.
>> So how is it different from what we have now:
>>
>> disable_irq()
>> VCPU writes to routing table
>>                                   e = entry from IRQ routing table
>>                                   kvm_set_msi_irq(e, &irq);
>>                                   kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast();
>> kvm_irq_routing_update(kvm, new);
>> synchronize_rcu()
>> VCPU resumes execution
>> enable_irq()
>> receive stale irq
> Adding a "disable/enable IRQs" looks like a relatively big change.  But
> perhaps it's not for some reason I'm missing.
>

Those are guest operations, which may not be there at all.