[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E988929.8040801@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:10:33 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V5 00/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
On 10/14/2011 11:37 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 10:02 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Jump labels are essentially binary: you can use path A or path B. pvops
>> are multiway: there's no limit to the number of potential number of
>> paravirtualized hypervisor implementations. At the moment we have 4:
>> native, Xen, KVM and lguest.
>>
> This isn't (or shouldn't be) really true... it should be possible to do
> an N-way jump label even if the current mechanism doesn't.
We probably don't want all those implementations (near) inline, so they
would end up being plain function calls anyway.
J
--
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