[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081104165548.GA696@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:55:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > My estimation is that if we do it right, your approach will behave
> > > better on modern CPUs (which is what matters most for such
> > > things), especially on real workloads where there's a considerable
> > > instruction-cache pressure. But it should be measured in any case.
> >
> > Fully agreed. I will do some measurements in the near future, maybe
> > next week. At least noone came up with an absolutely blocking
> > problem with this approach ;).
>
> how about "it does not build with lguest enabled" as a blocking
> problem? ;-)
>
> arch/x86/lguest/built-in.o: In function `lguest_init_IRQ':
> boot.c:(.init.text+0x33f): undefined reference to `interrupt'
>
> config attached.
... other than that it booted fine on a few testboxes here. That's
still not an exhaustive test by any means, but it's promising.
Ingo
--
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