[RFC PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: change condition for level interrupt resampling
Christoffer Dall
cdall at kernel.org
Sat Mar 10 17:55:08 PST 2018
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:36:12 +0000,
> Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:28:44PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > I'd be more confident if we did forbid P+A for such interrupts
>> > altogether, as they really feel like another kind of HW interrupt.
>>
>> How about a slightly bigger hammer: Can we avoid doing P+A for level
>> interrupts completely? I don't think that really makes much sense, and
>> I think we simply everything if we just come back out and resample the
>> line. For an edge, something like a network card, there's a potential
>> performance win to appending a new pending state, but I doubt that this
>> is the case for level interrupts.
>
> I started implementing the same thing yesterday. Somehow, it feels
> slightly better to have the same flow for all level interrupts,
> including the timer, and we only use the MI on EOI as a way to trigger
> the next state of injection. Still testing, but looking good so far.
>
> I'm still puzzled that we have this level-but-not-quite behaviour for
> VFIO interrupts. At some point, it is going to bite us badly.
>
Where is the departure from level-triggered behavior with VFIO? As
far as I can tell, the GIC flow of the interrupts will be just a level
interrupt, but we just need to make sure the resamplefd mechanism is
supported for both types of interrupts. Whether or not that's a
decent mechanism seems orthogonal to me, but that's a discussion for
another day I think.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list