RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Handle MSI irq storm

["Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please ignore my last mail. I forgot to add signed-off line.

Signed-off-by:          Shan Haitao <Haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>

Best Regards
Haitao Shan
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shan, Haitao
Sent: 2008年7月4日 15:22
To: Keir Fraser
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Handle MSI irq storm

Hi, Keir,

This is updated patch. Please help review it. Thanks!

Best Regards
Haitao Shan

-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2008年7月3日 21:18
To: Shan, Haitao
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle MSI irq storm

On 3/7/08 14:12, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As I was writing the new patch, I had some other considerations.
> Concerning PV guests, we can depend on the event-channel-pending to decide
> whether we will set timer and rely on the timer to enable this vector some
> time later.
> So for HVM guest, can we also rely on the timer to enable this interrupt
> vector later? (so in hvm_eoi_function, we only unmark the IRQ_INPROGRESS
> without enable it.) Thus, the handling can be the same for both PV guests and
> HVM guests.
> How do you think of this scheme?

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking.

 -- Keir

Attachment: mask_second_edge_irq.patch
Description: mask_second_edge_irq.patch

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