[PATCH]: Staging: hv: Allocate the vmbus irq dynamically

[KY Srinivasan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh at suse.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:03 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: Greg KH; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; devel at linuxdriverproject.org;
> virtualization at lists.osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Staging: hv: Allocate the vmbus irq dynamically
> 
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:56:16AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh at suse.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 5:29 PM
> > > To: KY Srinivasan
> > > Cc: Greg KH; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; devel at linuxdriverproject.org;
> > > virtualization at lists.osdl.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Staging: hv: Allocate the vmbus irq dynamically
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16:05PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh at suse.de]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 5:07 PM
> > > > > To: KY Srinivasan
> > > > > Cc: Greg KH; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; devel at linuxdriverproject.org;
> > > > > virtualization at lists.osdl.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Staging: hv: Allocate the vmbus irq dynamically
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:00:04PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg at kroah.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:14 PM
> > > > > > > To: KY Srinivasan
> > > > > > > Cc: gregkh at suse.de; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> > > > > > > devel at linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization at lists.osdl.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Staging: hv: Allocate the vmbus irq dynamically
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:55:35AM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz at microsoft.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hank Janssen <hjanssen at microsoft.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You didn't run this through checkpatch.pl.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please do so and fix the warning it gives you.
> > > > > > Greg, I did run the checkpatch script against this patch and the only
> > > > > > complaint I got was with regards to the IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM flag
> that I
> > > > > > pass. As a virtual machine, this is the only external event that the
> > > > > > VM is going to see and so I chose to keep this flag.  Is there
> > > > > > something that would replace this flag; looking at the Xen drivers
> > > > > > they do pass this flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > But that flag is going away, right?  And this really can't be a valid
> > > > > source of entropy as the HV channel is pretty predictable.
> > > >
> > > > Is it going away? What would replace this. Is all interrupt sources considered
> > > > predictable?
> > >
> > > Did you read the file that the checkpatch script told you to about this
> > > entry?
> >
> > It is only after reading the document, I decided to keep that flag. Please
> > note this is not a question of some interrupt sources not being
> > a good source of entropy; for this VM this is the only source of interrupts.
> > The document on this flag talked about how people were incorrectly
> > marking their interrupt as an entropy source; in this case there is not much of a
> > choice.
> >
> > >
> > > > This is the only unpredictable thing happening in the VM and that is the
> reason
> > > > I chose to keep the flag.
> > >
> > > If you remove it, do we loose all entropy for the VM?
> > >
> > > > > If you are only using this because Xen does/did it, that's not a valid
> > > > > excuse :)
> > > > Surely, you are joking.
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> >
> > To set the record straight here, this flag is in the existing code.
> > After I ran checkpatch, I toyed with the idea of getting rid of this. Then I
> > decided to keep it for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
> >
> > >
> > > > In any event I am sending you a new patch with that flag removed.
> > >
> > > Have you tested to see if you now loose all entropy, and it causes
> > > problems or not?
> >
> > I am glad you asked me to test it. When I remove this flag, the entropy goes
> down
> > significantly and this is not surprising. Looking at
> > /proc/sys/kernel/entropy/entropy_avail, with the original patch after a couple
> > of compiles the number would be in thousands. With that flag removed,
> > I have the VM up for about an hour, even after a couple of compiles,
> > the entropy number is yet to crack 200.
> >
> > Let me know how you want to proceed here.
> 
> Ok, my fault, let's keep the original flag.  Care to resend the patch
> you had originally sent?
Thanks Greg; I just sent it. I will deal with irq balancing issue in a separate patch.

Regards,

K. Y