Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] kvm: level irqfd and new eoifd

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33:38PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> v5:
>  - irqfds now have a one-to-one mapping with eoifds to prevent users
>    from consuming all of kernel memory by repeatedly creating eoifds
>    from a single irqfd.
>  - implement a kvm_clear_irq() which does a test_and_clear_bit of
>    the irq_state, only updating the pic/ioapic if changes and allowing
>    the caller to know if anything was done.  I added this onto the end
>    as it's essentially an optimization on the previous design.  It's
>    hard to tell if there's an actual performance benefit to this.

I have to agree to this, but we need to avoid invoking kvm_set_irq in
atomic context, without introducing sprurious eois.

Can bool + spinlock that previous patch has be replaced by an atomic?

>  - dropped eoifd gsi support patch as it was only an FYI.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
> 
> ---
> 
> Alex Williamson (4):
>       kvm: Convert eoifd to use kvm_clear_irq
>       kvm: Create kvm_clear_irq()
>       kvm: KVM_EOIFD, an eventfd for EOIs
>       kvm: Extend irqfd to support level interrupts
> 
> 
>  Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt |   28 +++
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                |    3 
>  include/linux/kvm.h               |   18 ++
>  include/linux/kvm_host.h          |   16 ++
>  virt/kvm/eventfd.c                |  333 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  virt/kvm/irq_comm.c               |   78 +++++++++
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c               |   11 +
>  7 files changed, 483 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/