From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:40:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1442493604.15327.80.camel@citrix.com> References: <1441960146-10569-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1441960146-10569-16-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1442423887.15327.29.camel@citrix.com> <1442479704.15327.65.camel@citrix.com> <55FA8A02.30705@citrix.com> <55FAA7AC.3010909@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7463257164275371927==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55FAA7AC.3010909@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , Keir Fraser , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , "Wu, Feng" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============7463257164275371927== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-PexPa7RnKRorZoofmYH6" --=-PexPa7RnKRorZoofmYH6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 12:44 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/2015 10:38 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > > Is it the case that the interrupt is not actually delivered to the > > processor, but that the pending bit will be set in the pi field, so tha= t > > the interrupt will be delivered the next time the hypervisor returns > > into the guest? > >=20 > > (I am assuming that is the case, because if the hypervisor *does* get a= n > > interrupt, then it can just unblock it there.) >=20 > Actually, it looks like you *do* in fact get a > pi_notification_interrupt() in this case. Could we to check to see if > the current vcpu is blocked and unblock it? >=20 > I haven't yet decided whether I prefer my original suggestion of > switching the interrupt and putting things on the wake-up list in > vcpu_block(), or of deferring adding things to the wake-up list until > the actual context switch. >=20 Sorry but I don't get what you mean with the latter. I particular, I don't think I understand what you mean with and how it would work to "defer[ring] adding things to the wake-up list until actual context switch"... In what case would you defer stuff to context switch? Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-PexPa7RnKRorZoofmYH6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlX6tKQACgkQk4XaBE3IOsRo7QCgk53D99OO2CKSIEsJoaIDXvma MUQAnjWBH+3tIMTNKDDvQ/6L5XuyzkpT =ziZO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-PexPa7RnKRorZoofmYH6-- --===============7463257164275371927== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============7463257164275371927==--