From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] ARM: KVM: Enable in-kernel timers with user space gic Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:32:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1479133935-63848-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1479133935-63848-3-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <20170626150334.fba6stzqzto4nvcb@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-arm , QEMU Developers , kvm-devel , cdall@linaro.org To: Andrew Jones , Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43014 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbdFZVcN (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:32:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170626150334.fba6stzqzto4nvcb@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/26/2017 05:03 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:20:50PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 14 November 2016 at 14:32, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> When running with KVM enabled, you can choose between emulating the >>> gic in kernel or user space. If the kernel supports in-kernel virtualization >>> of the interrupt controller, it will default to that. If not, if will >>> default to user space emulation. >>> >>> Unfortunately when running in user mode gic emulation, we miss out on >>> timer events which are only available from kernel space. This patch leverages >>> the new kernel/user space pending line synchronization for those timer events. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf >> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell >> > Hi everyone, > > I probably missed a refresh of this patch, but as I didn't see anything, > I picked this one up today in order to test the KVM support recently > merged. Tweaking this patch a bit to fit the new ABI allowed me to > instantiate a KVM guest without the in-kernel irqchip (tested on a > mustang). So, FWIW, this is report of a successful test. Is there a > refreshed version of this patch someone can point me to, which I should > test instead? Sorry, this did fall the cracks way too many times now. I've sent a respin that hopefully is slightly more future proof than this RFC :) If your tests passed with this patch, please extend them to also cover SMP support, as that was broken with this RFC. Alex