From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56847)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@minantech.com>) id 1Vly86-0002Qs-1M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:43:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@minantech.com>) id 1Vly7y-00066C-O9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:43:25 -0500
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:46634)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@minantech.com>) id 1Vly7y-000666-Hf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:43:18 -0500
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id y10so6194933wgg.24
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 01:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:43:14 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@minantech.com>
Message-ID: <20131128094313.GA5822@minantech.com>
References: <5294A68F.6060301@redhat.com>
	<CAF950W+-UiX6xv4vYmnxji9aWDU8ds2rnx7JugnbHQWJdCCD-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5294B461.5000405@redhat.com>
	<5294B634.4050801@cloudius-systems.com>
	<20131126150357.GA20352@redhat.com> <5294BC3B.6070902@redhat.com>
	<D3E216785288A145B7BC975F83A2ED10448BBAB3@SZXEMA510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
	<5297050E.6000700@redhat.com> <20131128091903.GA4609@kernel.org>
	<52970D00.9060109@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52970D00.9060109@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] create a single workqueue for each vm to
 update vm irq routing table
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@cloudius-systems.com>, "Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@huawei.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Zhanghaoyu (A)" <haoyu.zhang@huawei.com>, Luonengjun <luonengjun@huawei.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Zanghongyong <zanghongyong@huawei.com>, Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>, "Jinxin (F)" <jinxin712@huawei.com>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:29:36AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 28/11/2013 10:19, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > Not changing current behaviour is certainly safer, but I am still not 100%
> > convinced we have to ensure this.
> > 
> > Suppose guest does:
> > 
> > 1: change msi interrupt by writing to pci register
> > 2: read the pci register to flush the write
> > 3: zero idt
> > 
> > I am pretty certain that this code can get interrupt after step 2 on real HW,
> > but I cannot tell if guest can rely on it to be delivered exactly after
> > read instruction or it can be delayed by couple of instructions.
> 
> I agree it's fragile, but if a dedicated SRCU can meet the requirements
> (possibly with synchronize_srcu_expedited), I prefer not to break it.
> 
Definitely. If we can find reasonable solution that preserves current semantics
it's preferable path to take.

--
			Gleb.