[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070215101713.GK26240@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:17:13 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Hi!
> >>We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and
> >>which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are
> >>for hardware and not needed for virtualization.
> >>
> >
> >Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a
> >virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation.
> >
>
> Which is why an audit is irrelevant for the most part. Note on the
> performance below.
You know it is ugly. Alan demonstrated it even hurts performance, but
being ugly is the main problem.
If you _need_ to avoid udelay() in some cases, introduce
udelay_unless_virtualized(), and switch few users to it. Just globaly
defining udelay to nop is _ugly_.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists