Re: [KVM PATCH v7 2/3] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification interface

Gregory Haskins
2009-05-15T03:36:21Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2503 bytes --]

Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>> KVM provides a complete virtual system environment for guests, including
>>>> support for injecting interrupts modeled after the real
>>>> exception/interrupt
>>>> facilities present on the native platform (such as the IDT on x86).
>>>> Virtual interrupts can come from a variety of sources (emulated devices,
>>>> pass-through devices, etc) but all must be injected to the guest via
>>>> the KVM infrastructure. This patch adds a new mechanism to inject a
>>>> specific
>>>> interrupt to a guest using a decoupled eventfd mechnanism: Any legal
>>>> signal
>>>> on the irqfd (using eventfd semantics from either userspace or
>>>> kernel) will
>>>> translate into an injected interrupt in the guest at the next available
>>>> interrupt window.
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static void
>>>> +irqfd_inject(struct work_struct *work)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct _irqfd *irqfd = container_of(work, struct _irqfd, work);
>>>> + struct kvm *kvm = irqfd->kvm;
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think you need to ->read() from the irqfd, otherwise the count will
>>> never clear.
>>>
>> Yeah, and this is a disavantage to using eventfd vs a custom anon-fd
>> implementation.
>>
>> However, the count is really only there for deciding whether to sleep a
>> traditional eventfd recipient which doesn't really apply in this
>> application. I suppose we could try to invoke the read method (or add a
>> new method to eventfd to allow it to be cleared independent of the
>> f_ops->read() (ala eventfd_signal() vs f_ops->write()). I'm not
>> convinced we really need to worry about it, though. IMO we can just let
>> the count accumulate.
>>
>> But if you insist this loose end should be addressed, perhaps Davide has
>> some thoughts on how to best do this?
>>
>
> The counter is 64bit, so at 1M IRQ/s will take about 585K years to
> saturate. But from a symmetry POV, it may be better to clear it. Maybe
> with a kernel-side eventfd_read()?
>
Hi Davide,

I think ultimately that would be the direction to go. I will defer to
Avi, but I think we have reached consensus that while its perhaps sloppy
to leave the counter untouched, we can back-burner this issue for now
and just let it accumulate indefinately. If it becomes an issue down
the road we can always fix it then.

Thanks,
-Greg

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 266 bytes --]