Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification interface

Avi Kivity
2009-04-28T11:47:40Z

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>>> So what is your proposal for such interface?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ->write().
>>>
>>>
>> Alternatively, a new fileop ->signal_event(), which would map to
>> eventfd_signal() or irqfd_signal(). This would be defined to work in
>> irq contexts. It may also be useful for uio interrupts.
>>
>>
> Hmm...I'm not crazy about either of those. write() has obvious
> limitations both from a interrupt execution context, as well as the
> awkwardness of dealing with creating+passing a viable "userspace"
> pointer from kernel code. On the other hand, a new fileop doesn't quite
> seem appropriate either since it doesn't apply to the overall fileop
> abstraction very well.
>
> We could potentially have a separate vtable interface just for
> event-type fds, and make eventfd and irqfd the first implementations.
> But I am not sure it is worth it. What I suggest is that we work within
> the existing eventfd interface. It was designed specifically to signal
> events, after all.
>
> If at some point in the future we need to ensure that the callbacks are
> not invoked from a preempt-off/irq-off critical section, we can revist
> the eventfd internals at that time. Note that since we would like to
> support signaling from interrupt context anyway, trying to get rid of
> the wqh critical section that we have today may be a fools errand (*).
> Instead, we should probably focus on making the injection path support
> non-preemptible contexts, as this will have the biggest benefits and
> gains in the long run.
>
>
But again, you're forcing everyone who uses irqfd to require eventfd.

Maybe we should change eventfd_signal() to fall back to ->write if the
file happens not to be an eventfd. It could also handle the
nonpreemptible context as well.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.