From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: passthrough: improve interrupt injection locking Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:38:59 +0100 Message-ID: <562A2A63.2060207@citrix.com> References: <1445598322-22154-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <1445603845.2374.140.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Zpbd3-0003wp-T1 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:39:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1445603845.2374.140.camel@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: Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Cc: Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 23/10/15 13:37, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 12:05 +0100, David Vrabel wrote: >> When injecting an interrupt for a passthrough device into a guest, the >> per-domain event_lock is held, reducing performance when a guest has >> many VCPUs and high interrupt rates. > > Did you CC me due to a possible impact on ARM? If so then I think since ARM > lacks this "dpci" stuff none of these changes should have any impact on > that arch. > > If you think I've missed something or you CCd me for some other reason > please let me know. This series seems to fall into "THE REST" category. David