RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [XenPPC] Re: IRQs delivery.

["Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 3:41 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
>> I don't see any fairness or latency problems [except when we are
>> dealing with event channel].
> 
> Problem exists:
> If you defer the delivery of an IO interrupt because the VCPU is
> masking them
> --and--
> If the domain can unmask interrupts without the hypervisor knowing
> 
Yes. Besides these,
Co-exist of event channel and guest LSAPIC (Similar with LAPIC) cause 
messy of priority issues between event and guest IRQs. 

Only with getting rid of vLSAPIC, the priority can be all fairly managed

by the event channel mechanism. 
Eddie

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel