[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:26:40 +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 05/05/2010 03:54 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> Agreed, but, 'oos_shadow' option is document in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt,
> if it's just a debug option, i think we do better not document it.
>
It has to be documented, otherwise people complain :)
Anyway the variable name and the option name don't have to be the same
(I think).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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