From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Radim Krcmár" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>, "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add lowest-priority support for vt-d posted-interrupts
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:38:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56547662.7020804@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151124143557.GA24676@potion.brq.redhat.com>
On 24/11/2015 15:35, Radim Krcmár wrote:
> > Thanks for your guys' review. Yes, we can introduce a module option
> > for it. According to Radim's comments above, we need use the
> > same policy for PI and non-PI lowest-priority interrupts, so here is the
> > question: for vector hashing, it is easy to apply it for both non-PI and PI
> > case, however, for Round-Robin, in non-PI case, the round robin counter
> > is used and updated when the interrupt is injected to guest, but for
> > PI case, the interrupt is injected to guest totally by hardware, software
> > cannot control it while interrupt delivery, we can only decide the
> > destination vCPU for the PI interrupt in the initial configuration
> > time (guest update vMSI -> QEMU -> KVM). Do you guys have any good
> > suggestion to do round robin for PI lowest-priority? Seems Round robin
> > is not a good way for PI lowest-priority interrupts. Any comments
> > are appreciated!
>
> It's meaningless to try dynamic algorithms with PI so if we allow both
> lowest priority algorithms, I'd let PI handle any lowest priority only
> with vector hashing. (It's an ugly compromise.)
For now, I would just keep the 4.4 behavior, i.e. disable PI unless
there is a single destination || vector hashing is enabled. We can flip
the switch later.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-24 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-09 2:46 [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add lowest-priority support for vt-d posted-interrupts Feng Wu
2015-11-16 6:18 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-16 19:03 ` Radim Krčmář
2015-11-17 9:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-11-24 1:26 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-24 14:35 ` Radim Krcmár
2015-11-24 14:38 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2015-11-25 1:58 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-25 11:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-11-24 1:26 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-24 14:31 ` Radim Krčmář
2015-11-24 14:44 ` Radim Krčmář
2015-11-25 3:21 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-25 14:12 ` Radim Krcmár
2015-11-25 14:38 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-11-25 15:43 ` Radim Krčmář
2015-11-26 6:24 ` Wu, Feng
2015-11-26 14:03 ` Radim Krcmár
2015-12-09 8:19 ` Wu, Feng
2015-12-09 14:53 ` Radim Krčmář
2015-12-10 1:52 ` Wu, Feng
2015-12-11 14:37 ` Radim Krcmár
2015-12-15 1:52 ` Wu, Feng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56547662.7020804@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=feng.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox