[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PROPOSAL] Event channel for SMP-VMs: per-vCPU or per-OS?
>>> On 29.10.13 at 15:28, Luwei Cheng <chengluwei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 29.10.13 at 11:52, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > Xen should be able to arbitrate which one gets the actual event >> > delivery, right? So the only risk would be that another vcpu would >> > notice the pending interrupt and handle it itself. >> >> As said before - for the FIFO model Xen's arbitration would be >> sufficient (as long as affinity changes get carried out with >> sufficient care), but for the legacy model several vCPU-s might >> end up trying to service the event (since the pending bitmap is >> per-domain, not per-vCPU).. >> >> As long as the event can be served quickly, and meanwhile there is no > correctness > problem (hopefully), do we really care which vCPU serves it..:d ? No, we don't care. But we do care that it is exactly one that does. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |