[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111003131328.GW5795@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:13:28 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"jeremy@...p.org" <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [V6][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multiple
events and unknown NMIs
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 12:07:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >Right. Avi, Jeremy what was your objection that needed this optimization
> >in the first place?
> >
>
> First, iterating over all NMI sources is going to be slow, and a lot
> more so in a guest. This reduces the performance of perf.
I understand and agree. The only positive I can offer is most machines
will most likely only have two NMI handlers registered: perf and
arch_backtrace. So any slowness should be minimal. We might even be able
to code up arch_backtrace to register its NMI handler when it is called to
minimize the the number of NMI sources even more.
Cheers,
Don
>
> Second, I wanted to use NMIs as a way of waking up a vcpu sleeping
> with interrupts disabled (in the context of Jeremy's paravirt
> spinlock patches). Looks like we'll have to use paravirtualization
> for that.
>
> --
> 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