Re: [PATCH 3/4] PF: Provide additional direct page notification

[Alexander Graf]

On 10.07.2013, at 12:42, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:39:01PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> 
>> On 09.07.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/07/13 15:56, Dominik Dingel wrote:
>>>> By setting a Kconfig option, the architecture can control when
>>>> guest notifications will be presented by the apf backend.
>>>> So there is the default batch mechanism, working as before, where the vcpu thread
>>>> should pull in this information. On the other hand there is now the direct
>>>> mechanism, this will directly push the information to the guest.
>>>> 
>>>> Still the vcpu thread should call check_completion to cleanup leftovers,
>>>> that leaves most of the common code untouched.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>>> for the "why". We want to use the existing architectured interface.
>> 
>> Shouldn't this be a runtime option?
>> 
> Why? What is the advantage of using sync delivery when HW can do it
> async?

What's the advantage of having an option at all then? Who selects it?


Alex

--
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/