Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: defer processing events on the NMI exit path

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/03/13 15:56, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 11:53, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> __softirq_pending is an unsigned long.  Would it not be prudent to use
>>> cmpq to save obscure bugs if the implementation changes, or are we
>>> sufficiently sure that this wont happen?
>> All other existing instances of similar assembly code use testl or
>> cmpl, and in fact I merely copied some other instance.
>>
>> As we're not getting close to 32, I think we might rather want to
>> adjust the __softirq_pending type. Keir?
> Yup, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be a uint32_t.
>
>  -- Keir
>
>

Further to that, is there any reason that it cant be per-cpu, to save
having information like this moving around pcpus in a hot cache line?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel