[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090521184233.3c3e97ad@dhcp-100-2-144.bos.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:42:33 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
"Li, Xin" <xin.li@...el.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified
On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:16:55 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Paravirt patching turns all the pvops calls into direct calls, so
> _spin_lock etc do end up having direct calls. For example, the compiler
> generated code for paravirtualized _spin_lock is:
>
> <_spin_lock+0>: mov %gs:0xb4c8,%rax
> <_spin_lock+9>: incl 0xffffffffffffe044(%rax)
> <_spin_lock+15>: callq *0xffffffff805a5b30
> <_spin_lock+22>: retq
>
> The indirect call will get patched to:
> <_spin_lock+0>: mov %gs:0xb4c8,%rax
> <_spin_lock+9>: incl 0xffffffffffffe044(%rax)
> <_spin_lock+15>: callq <__ticket_spin_lock>
> <_spin_lock+20>: nop; nop /* or whatever 2-byte nop */
> <_spin_lock+22>: retq
>
Can't those calls be changed to jumps?
--
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