[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Enable hash vtlb
- To: "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:49:51 -0700
- Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:50:04 -0700
- List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: AcZaOCQZxD2/LTjiSWCJJGOwhZ+0cwAKHVcgAADzXaAAApuSMAADFZ2Q
- Thread-topic: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Enable hash vtlb
>> As the project goes, we should really decide a patch base on if it is
>> architecturally needed to support Xen/IPF to achieve its best system
>> performance, not base on if it changes fundermental code or
>not! If a
>> design is needed, a short-term pain in addressing bugs is better than
>> long-term unaddressed issues.
>Agreed. I am discussing tradeoffs of performance vs stability vs
>functionality. On our current aggressive schedule, I would place
>networking functionality above stability, but I wouldn't place
>hugetlb functionality or huge SMP performance above stability.
>Others may disagree.
Again, it is not fair to hint vTLB will introduce new bugs compares to
the existing global VHPT implementation.
Can the community share your agreesive schedule view here? Sounds
everything needs to be serialized and take a small step a time!
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list