From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933485AbXGSNiS (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:38:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759628AbXGSNiE (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:38:04 -0400 Received: from il.qumranet.com ([82.166.9.18]:56544 "EHLO il.qumranet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759680AbXGSNiD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:38:03 -0400 Message-ID: <469F6941.9010901@qumranet.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:38:09 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lennart Sorensen CC: Alan Cox , Dor Laor , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling. References: <005901c7c921$79c006c0$6d401440$@com> <20070718123040.615795b7@the-village.bc.nu> <64F9B87B6B770947A9F8391472E032160CC16C92@ehost011-8.exch011.intermedia.net> <20070718174736.0baf6d0e@the-village.bc.nu> <469E43D5.70802@qumranet.com> <20070718191433.GB24545@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <469F2D8C.7020805@qumranet.com> <20070719131718.GC5623@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <20070719131718.GC5623@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:23:24PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> No, it means disallowing pci devices that use shared irqs, and allowing >> pci devices that use non-shared irqs. >> > > Most machiens I see today have almost no chance of having PCI devices > without shared IRQs. This probably means any implementation will only > work on a small set of machines with very specific setup in terms of > which PCI slots they install cards in, and only as long as you don't > allow any type of hotplugging of devices (or ever changing hardware at > all). May not be worth implementing if it has such a limited use case. > The MSI setup on the other hand does sound like it might have potential > for working in general. > > Looking at two random servers here and a desktop, interrupts are unshared except for usb. A laptop was not so lucky. So "no chance" is a bit extreme. I agree it's far from optimal, but it is less limited than you imply. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function