[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] configure: define CONFIG_XEN when Xen is enabled
- To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:56:03 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=philmd@xxxxxxxxxx; keydata= mQINBDXML8YBEADXCtUkDBKQvNsQA7sDpw6YLE/1tKHwm24A1au9Hfy/OFmkpzo+MD+dYc+7 bvnqWAeGweq2SDq8zbzFZ1gJBd6+e5v1a/UrTxvwBk51yEkadrpRbi+r2bDpTJwXc/uEtYAB GvsTZMtiQVA4kRID1KCdgLa3zztPLCj5H1VZhqZsiGvXa/nMIlhvacRXdbgllPPJ72cLUkXf z1Zu4AkEKpccZaJspmLWGSzGu6UTZ7UfVeR2Hcc2KI9oZB1qthmZ1+PZyGZ/Dy+z+zklC0xl XIpQPmnfy9+/1hj1LzJ+pe3HzEodtlVA+rdttSvA6nmHKIt8Ul6b/h1DFTmUT1lN1WbAGxmg CH1O26cz5nTrzdjoqC/b8PpZiT0kO5MKKgiu5S4PRIxW2+RA4H9nq7nztNZ1Y39bDpzwE5Sp bDHzd5owmLxMLZAINtCtQuRbSOcMjZlg4zohA9TQP9krGIk+qTR+H4CV22sWldSkVtsoTaA2 qNeSJhfHQY0TyQvFbqRsSNIe2gTDzzEQ8itsmdHHE/yzhcCVvlUzXhAT6pIN0OT+cdsTTfif MIcDboys92auTuJ7U+4jWF1+WUaJ8gDL69ThAsu7mGDBbm80P3vvUZ4fQM14NkxOnuGRrJxO qjWNJ2ZUxgyHAh5TCxMLKWZoL5hpnvx3dF3Ti9HW2dsUUWICSQARAQABtDJQaGlsaXBwZSBN YXRoaWV1LURhdWTDqSAoUGhpbCkgPHBoaWxtZEByZWRoYXQuY29tPokCVQQTAQgAPwIbDwYL CQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AWIQSJweePYB7obIZ0lcuio/1u3q3A3gUCXsfWwAUJ KtymWgAKCRCio/1u3q3A3ircD/9Vjh3aFNJ3uF3hddeoFg1H038wZr/xi8/rX27M1Vj2j9VH 0B8Olp4KUQw/hyO6kUxqkoojmzRpmzvlpZ0cUiZJo2bQIWnvScyHxFCv33kHe+YEIqoJlaQc JfKYlbCoubz+02E2A6bFD9+BvCY0LBbEj5POwyKGiDMjHKCGuzSuDRbCn0Mz4kCa7nFMF5Jv piC+JemRdiBd6102ThqgIsyGEBXuf1sy0QIVyXgaqr9O2b/0VoXpQId7yY7OJuYYxs7kQoXI 6WzSMpmuXGkmfxOgbc/L6YbzB0JOriX0iRClxu4dEUg8Bs2pNnr6huY2Ft+qb41RzCJvvMyu gS32LfN0bTZ6Qm2A8ayMtUQgnwZDSO23OKgQWZVglGliY3ezHZ6lVwC24Vjkmq/2yBSLakZE 6DZUjZzCW1nvtRK05ebyK6tofRsx8xB8pL/kcBb9nCuh70aLR+5cmE41X4O+MVJbwfP5s/RW 9BFSL3qgXuXso/3XuWTQjJJGgKhB6xXjMmb1J4q/h5IuVV4juv1Fem9sfmyrh+Wi5V1IzKI7 RPJ3KVb937eBgSENk53P0gUorwzUcO+ASEo3Z1cBKkJSPigDbeEjVfXQMzNt0oDRzpQqH2vp apo2jHnidWt8BsckuWZpxcZ9+/9obQ55DyVQHGiTN39hkETy3Emdnz1JVHTU0Q==
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Laurent Vivier <laurent@xxxxxxxxx>, "open list:X86" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:56:11 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 7/28/20 11:53 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 10:51, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> I'd rather uninline xen_enabled() but I'm not sure this has perf
>> penalties. Paolo is that OK to uninline it?
I suppose no because it is in various hot paths:
exec.c:588: if (xen_enabled() && memory_access_is_direct(mr, is_write)) {
exec.c:2243: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2326: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2478: } else if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2525: } else if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2576: if (xen_enabled() && block->host == NULL) {
exec.c:2609: if (xen_enabled() && block->host == NULL) {
exec.c:2657: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:3625: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:3717: if (xen_enabled()) {
include/exec/ram_addr.h:295: if (!mask && !xen_enabled()) {
>
> Can we just follow the same working pattern we already have
> for kvm_enabled() etc ?
This was the idea... I'll look at what I missed.
Phil.
|
