Re: [Xen-devel] VT-d Posted-interrupt (PI) design for XEN

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.03.15 at 09:29, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:13 PM
>> And if it can know, why couldn't the handler for
>> posted_intr_vector not know either (i.e. after introducing a specific
>> handler for it in place of the currently used event_check_interrupt)?
> 
> Come back to the above scenario, vCPU1 is running on pCPU0 while vCPU0
> is blocked, if we still use posted_intr_vector for the blocked vCPU0. If 
> vCPU1
> is running in non-root mode and external interrupts happen for it, the 
> notification
> event will be handled by CPU hardware (in non-root mode) automatically,
> then we cannot get any control in the handler for posted_intr_vector.

And how would this be different with your separate new vector? I
feel I'm missing something, but I'm afraid I have to rely on you to
point out what it is. Just again - please explain what it is you need
two global vectors for that can't be done with one.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel