<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Virtualizing Interrupts in Software Archive</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768820#M4694</link>
    <description>Yes, it is a PCIe device. VTd is plan B, so it looks like we'll try looking in that direction for awhile.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks!</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:25:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anthony_B_Intel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-08-20T18:25:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768815#M4689</link>
      <description>It seems like there must be some way of virtualizing interrupts without catching them all in the VMM or exiting on every APIC access from the guest...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Let's say I have a single device that I need the VMM to manage and present a virtual device to the guest. I want to catch the physicaldevice's interrupts in the VMM but I don't care about any other device and I would really like to avoid virtualizing the whole APIC just to hide this one interrupt from the guest. When the VMM is done, I want to inject an interrupt for the virtual function into the guest.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is there any way to catch just this one interrupt in the VMM and let everything else pass through to the guest without exiting?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:16:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768815#M4689</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anthony_B_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-04T19:16:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768816#M4690</link>
      <description>Unfortunately the current generation of H/W and VMMs don't yet support this functionality.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Are you interested in the performance benefits of it, or is there a functional problem you are facing?</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:41:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768816#M4690</guid>
      <dc:creator>Hussam_Mousa__Intel_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-17T18:41:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768817#M4691</link>
      <description>Virtualized interrupts are not currently supported today. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;David Ott</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:41:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768817#M4691</guid>
      <dc:creator>David_O_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-17T18:41:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768818#M4692</link>
      <description>Both, actually. We would like the guest to be able to use their operating system's in-box class drivers without an additional driver for our device. This isn't possible if we have to explicitly coordinate with the code running in the VMM.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We can virtualize more completely but then we incur performance penalties and add complexity in the VMM. I was looking for a way around this should such an option exist...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:54:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768818#M4692</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anthony_B_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-17T18:54:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768819#M4693</link>
      <description>If this is a PCI-E device you can use VT-D pass-through for the functionality you described. Have you looked at that option?</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:38:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768819#M4693</guid>
      <dc:creator>Hussam_Mousa__Intel_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-17T20:38:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualizing Interrupts</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768820#M4694</link>
      <description>Yes, it is a PCIe device. VTd is plan B, so it looks like we'll try looking in that direction for awhile.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks!</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:25:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Virtualizing-Interrupts/m-p/768820#M4694</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anthony_B_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-20T18:25:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

