[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BDAA94A.8050407@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:56:26 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM MMU: do not intercept invlpg if 'oos_shadow'
is disabled
On 04/30/2010 12:05 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> If 'oos_shadow' == 0, intercepting invlpg command is really
> unnecessary.
>
> And it's good for us to compare the performance between enable 'oos_shadow'
> and disable 'oos_shadow'
>
> @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ static int dbg = 0;
> module_param(dbg, bool, 0644);
> #endif
>
> -static int oos_shadow = 1;
> +int __read_mostly oos_shadow = 1;
> module_param(oos_shadow, bool, 0644);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(oos_shadow);
>
Please rename to kvm_oos_shadow to reduce potential for conflict with
other global names.
But really, this is a debug option, I don't expect people to run with
oos_shadow=0, so there's not much motivation to optimize it.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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