Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 May 2013 10:57:53 -0400 | From | Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/9] xen/smp/pvhvm: Don't initialize IRQ_WORKER as we are using the native one. |
| |
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 02:25:16PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:27:20PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > There is no need to use the PV version of the IRQ_WORKER mechanism > > > > as under PVHVM we are using the native version. The native > > > > version is using the SMP API. > > > > > > > > They just sit around unused: > > > > > > > > 69: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork0 > > > > 83: 0 0 xen-percpu-ipi irqwork1 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> > > > > > > Might be worth trying to make it work instead? > > > Is it just because we don't set the apic->send_IPI_* functions to the > > > xen specific version on PVHVM? > > > > > > > Right. We use the baremetal mechanism to do it. And it works fine. > > OK, it works fine, but won't it generate many mores trap and emulate > cycles?
No idea. We can certainly make use of the PV IPI mechanism for IRQ_WORKER type mechaism but I would have to play with xentrace to get a good handle of what is involved (And how the v Posted interrupt thing affects this).
Right now that is something I can't do (buried in bugs).
| |