Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.

> What if we will force the specific device to the end of the list. Once
> IRQ_NONE was returned by the other devices, we will mask the irq,
> forward the irq to the guest, issue a timer for 1msec. Motivation:
> 1msec is long enough for the guest to ack the irq + host unmask the irq

It makes no difference. The deadlock isn't fixable by timing hacks.
Consider the following sequence


	Guest0	-	blocked on I/O

	IRQ14 from your hardware
		Block IRQ14
		Sent to guest (guest is blocked)

	IRQ14 from hard disk
		Ignored (as blocked)

	Deadlock

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
    • From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
    • From: "Or Sagi" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • RE: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
    • From: "Dor Laor" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFT][PATCH v7] sata_mv: convert to new EH
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: kill an extra put in sysfs_create_link() failure path
• Previous by thread: RE: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
• Next by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]