[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] xen: drop hypercall function tables
On 13.12.21 11:35, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.12.2021 10:10, Juergen Gross wrote:On 09.12.21 10:05, Jan Beulich wrote:On 08.12.2021 16:55, Juergen Gross wrote:In order to avoid indirect function calls on the hypercall path as much as possible this series is removing the hypercall function tables and is replacing the hypercall handler calls via the function array by automatically generated call macros. Another by-product of generating the call macros is the automatic generating of the hypercall handler prototypes from the same data base which is used to generate the macros. This has the additional advantage of using type safe calls of the handlers and to ensure related handler (e.g. PV and HVM ones) share the same prototypes. A very brief performance test (parallel build of the Xen hypervisor in a 6 vcpu guest) showed a very slim improvement (less than 1%) of the performance with the patches applied. The test was performed using a PV and a PVH guest. Changes in V2: - new patches 6, 14, 15 - patch 7: support hypercall priorities for faster code - comments addressed Changes in V3: - patches 1 and 4 removed as already applied - comments addressed Juergen Gross (13): xen: move do_vcpu_op() to arch specific code xen: harmonize return types of hypercall handlers xen: don't include asm/hypercall.h from C sources xen: include compat/platform.h from hypercall.h xen: generate hypercall interface related code xen: use generated prototypes for hypercall handlers x86/pv-shim: don't modify hypercall table xen/x86: don't use hypercall table for calling compat hypercalls xen/x86: call hypercall handlers via generated macro xen/arm: call hypercall handlers via generated macro xen/x86: add hypercall performance counters for hvm, correct pv xen: drop calls_to_multicall performance counter tools/xenperf: update hypercall namesIt's not easy to tell which, if any, of the later patches are fully independent of earlier ones and could go in ahead of those awaiting further acks. Do you have any suggestion there, or should we wait until things can be applied in order?I think all but the last patch should be applied in order. The last one obviously can be applied at any time.Hmm, I think 11 and 12 are fine to go ahead as well; I actually need them for some immediate purpose and hence I did pull them (but nothing else) into my local tree, without observing issues. Yeah, those should be okay to take. Juergen Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |