[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091108125135.GA13099@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:51:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/2009 01:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>Three existing callbacks are: kmemcheck, mmiotrace, notifier. Two
> >>of them kmemcheck, mmiotrace are enabled only for debugging, should
> >>not be performance concern. And notifier call sites (two of them)
> >>are deliberately, as explained by comment, not at the function entry,
> >>so can't be unified with others. (And kmemcheck also has two different
> >>call site BTW)
> >
> > We want mmiotrace to be generic distro capable so the overhead when
> > the hook is not used is of concern.
>
> Maybe we should generalize paravirt-ops patching in case if (x) f() is
> deemed too expensive.
Yes, that's a nice idea. We have quite a number of 'conditional
callbacks' in various critical paths that could be made lighter via such
a technique.
It would also free new callbacks from the 'it increases overhead even if
unused' criticism and made it easier to add them.
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