From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/16] KVM: arm64: handle pending bit for LPIs in ITS
 emulation
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:49:41 +0100
Message-ID: <56153F15.1080800@arm.com>
References: <1444229726-31559-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1444229726-31559-13-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <026901d10112$4dea39d0$e9bead70$@samsung.com> <56153BD2.1050904@arm.com> <028c01d10117$46bd9440$d438bcc0$@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: eric.auger@linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>,
	'Andre Przywara' <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
	christoffer.dall@linaro.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58521 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754023AbbJGPto (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 11:49:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <028c01d10117$46bd9440$d438bcc0$@samsung.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/10/15 16:46, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello!
> 
>> Sure. And you then have to parse and validate all the tables each and
>> every time you're going to inject an interrupt (because the guest can
>> change the table content behind your back). You are quickly going to
>> notice that your performance is abysmal.
> 
>  I don't see any real problems, at least with LPI tables. If the guest changes something, it will be
> immediately available to us. I don't see any need to seriously validate something, at least here.
> Pending bit is just pending bit, and configuration is just priority value plus enable bit.
>  But, well, if we think a bit better, in case of pending bit modification, the operations on both
> guest and host side have to be atomic, otherwise we can clobber our table if, for example, both host
> and guest modify adjacent bits. And there's no way to interlock with the guest. So, OK, i accept
> your point.

The pending table is the least of our concerns. Device table, ITTs,
collections. That's the real problem.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...