[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] VMX: wbinvd when vmentry under UC

Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/11/13 14:15, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> 11/28/13 8:17 AM >>>
>>>> Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>>>> Yes. reprogram_timer here just delay timer a little slot, say,
>>>>> 1~2ms. I think it's OK, i.e. at any point of wbinvd() operation at
>>>>> hypervisor, or any irq disabled area, timer interrupt in fact also
>>>>> has good chance to be delayed some time -- however at
>>>>> TIMER_SOFTIRQ, all expired thing would be executed, and
>>>>> re-calculated and set next time point via reprogram_timer --
>>>>> that's OK. 
>>>> Comments/thoughts about this option?
>>> Apart from continuing to be very uncertain that this won't have any
>>> bad side effects, I'm also rather concerned that you deal with one
>>> special case interrupt here, ignoring other potentially high rate
>>> ones (like such coming from NICs). 
>>> Jan
>> Considering this, seems adding flag is the only work around way
>> since high freq interrupt would result in dead-like-loop. My concern
>> of adding flag is it's not easy to clean every possible path,
>> especially future extension.   
>> Or, do not support vt-d w/o snoop.
>> Thanks,
>> Jinsong
> Do you know how many systems have vt-d without snoop ?
> ~Andrew

Yes, that's what I need check inside Intel. Maybe not feasible idea I agree.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.