Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: Event channel vs current scheme speed [was vIOSAPIC and IRQs delivery]

[Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>]

Le Vendredi 10 Mars 2006 10:21, Dong, Eddie a écrit :
> Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > Event channel is 1 hypercall *iif* callback is used.  If current
> > event-channel (through IRQ) is used, this is not true.  And I am
> > angry with callback.
>
> It looked like you agree this suggestion (at least not against) at
> Xensummit.
> What changes your mind?
As previously said, I agree with vIOSAPIC (for sure, I made a patch).
I don't remember we talked a lot about evtchn+callback and I don't remember we 
reached an agreement on this.  Before Xen Summit, I was not well aware of 
evtchn internals.

> BTW, callback support is on the way now. Kevin has sent out some
> patch already. By the end of Q1, we should see this.
>
> > Ask Dan.  I don't know why he didn't use event channel to deliver
> > IRQs.  By seeing the amount of optimization for IRQs, I deduced he
> > didn't want to deviler IRQs with event-channel.  Maybe I am wrong.
>
> At the very beginning, taking a shortcut is defintely OK, because the
> community at that time is very small. Now we have double digits active
> people in the community so we can do more :-)
> BTW, last year our design are based on that dom0 own all machine
> resource, so that shortcut is correct and reasonable. If I had been
> implementing this code, I would have taken shortcut too.
This doesn't stand.  Why optimizing a shurtcut ?  For fun ?

Tristan.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel