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

[Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>]

Le Vendredi 10 Mars 2006 16:01, Dong, Eddie a écrit :
> > I agree the current model has implicit priorities.
> >
> > But I am a little bit skeptical how the priority argument.  As far as
> > I understand, in Xen or in Linux first asked is first priority.
Sorry, I was not clear enough.  I agree event channel can mostly respect 
priority.

Except clock and IPI, I think Linux doesn't use priority.  I can't force a 
card to have an higher priority than another card.
Is it right ?

[...]
> These are all corner cases that we must consider as product, but at
> early development we can take shortcut like using pseudo IRQ for event
> channel here to let the whole project go ahead. And this is what we
> talked at xensummit, people (Dan, Ian, Keir, Jun) all have no object for
> potential issue concerns (for example mask/unmask support and priority
> issue) and agree to take next. PPC guy also uses pseudo physical IRQ for
> event channel as I remembered. Their community is much smaller than us
> now and their development is also lagger than IA64.
> This is why we need to clean up now as callback based event channel
> approach has already been in production stage. Making a new mechanism
> has high risk.
You know we don't agree on these points.  Writing them again won't make me 
change.

Tristan.


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