[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
- To: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 09:08:16 +0200
- Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, jeremy@xxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akataria@xxxxxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 07:08:47 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Guys, please trim email.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
